Columbia  ^mbersiitp 

in  tije  Citp  of  ^eto  |9orfe 


LIBRARY 


GIVEN  BY 

Dean  LcBain 


REMINISCENCES 

OF 

Sixty  Years  in  Public  Affairs 

volume  ii 


'?.< 


Reminiscences  of 

ijrtp  |9ears; 

in  Public  Affairs 

by  George  S.  Boutwell 

Governor  of  Massachusetts,  1 851  — 1852 
Representative  in  Congress,  1863— 1869 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  1869— 1873 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  1873— 1877 

etc.,  etc. 

I 

Volume  Two  ^ 


New  York 
McClure,  Phillips  ^  Co 

Mcmii 


/6 

V     - 

kJ  ■ 

From  iAbratv    o^ 
Jaaii    l/io-dam 

Copyright^  igo2^  by 
McClure,  Phillips  ^  Co. 


Published  May,    igo2.    N. 


CONTENTS 


XXVIII  Service  in  Congress      .... 

XXIX  Incidents  in  the  Civil  War 

XXX  The  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  . 

XXXI  Investigations  Following  the  Civil  War 

XXXII  Impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson 

XXXIII  The  Treasury  Department  in   1869 

XXXIV  The  Mint  Bill  and  the  "Crime  of  1873" 

XXXV  Black  Friday — September  24,  1869 

XXXVI  An   Historic  Sale  of   United  States   Bonds  in 
England  ..... 

XXXVII  General  Grant's  Administration    . 

XXXVIII  General   Grant  as  a  Statesman     . 

XXXIX  Reminiscences  of  Public  Men 

XL  Blaine  and  Conkling  and  the  Republican  Con- 
vention of  1880    .... 

XLI  From   1875  to   1895  .... 

XLII  The  Last  of  the  Ocean  Slave  Traders 

XLIII  Mr.  Lincoln  as  an   Historical  Personage 

XLIV  Speech  on  Columbus   .... 

XLV  Imperialism  as  a  Public  Policy 

INDEX  


Page 
I 

17 
36 

55 
96 

125 

150 

164 

183 

203 

225 

237 

260 
277 
289 

300 

314 
323 

347 


REMINISCENCES 

OF 

Sixty  Years  in  Public  Affairs 

volume  ii 


XXVIII 

SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS 

MY  election  to  Congress  in  1862  was  contested  by  Judge 
Benjamin  F.  Thomas,  who  was  then  a  Republican 
member  from  the  Norfolk  district.  The  re-district- 
ing of  the  State  brought  Thomas  and  Train  into  the  same 
district.  I  was  nominated  by  the  Republican  Convention, 
and  Thomas  then  became  the  candidate  of  the  "  People's 
Party/'  and  at  the  election  he  was  supported  by  the  Demo- 
crats. His  course  in  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress  on  the 
various  projects  for  compromise  had  alienated  many  Re- 
publicans, and  it  had  brought  to  him  the  support  of  many 
Democrats.  My  active  radicalism  had  alienated  the  con- 
servative Republicans.  As  a  consequence,  my  majority 
reached  only  about  1,400  while  in  the  subsequent  elections, 
1864-66-68  the  majorities  ranged  from  five  to  seven  thou- 
sand. 


Among  the  new  members  who  were  elected  to  the  Thirty- 
eighth  Congress  and  who  attained  distinction  subsequently, 
were  Garfield,  Blaine  and  Allison.  Wilson,  of  Iowa,  had 
been  in  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress  and  Henry  Winter 
Davis  had  been  a  member  at  an  earlier  period.     Mr.  Conk- 


2  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ling  was  a  member  of  the  Tliirty-seventh  Congress,  but 
lie  was  defeated  by  his  townsman  Francis  Kernan  under 
the  intluence  of  the  reactionary  wave  which  moved  over 
the  North  in  1862.  At  that  time  Mr.  Lincohi  had  lost 
ground  with  the  people.  The  war  had  not  been  prose- 
cuted successfully,  the  expenses  were  enormous,  taxes  were 
heavy,  multitudes  of  families  were  in  grief,  and  the 
prospects  of  peace  through  victory  were  very  dim.  The 
Democrats  in  the  House  became  confident  and  aggres- 
sive. 

Alexander  Long,  of  Ohio,  made  a  speech  so  tainted  with 
sympathy  for  the  rebels  that  Speaker  Colfax  came  down 
from  the  chair  and  moved  a  resolution  of  censure.  Har- 
ris, of  Maryland,  in  the  debate  upon  the  resolution,  made 
a  speech  much  more  ofifensive  than  that  of  Long.  As  a  con- 
sequence, the  censure  was  applied  to  both  gentlemen  and 
as  a  further  consequence,  the  friends  of  the  South  be- 
came more  guarded  in  expressions  of  sympathy.  It  is  true 
also,  that  there  were  many  Democrats  who  did  not  sym- 
pathize with  Harris,  Long,  and  Pendleton.  Voorhees  of 
Indiana  was  also  an  active  sympathizer  with  the  South.  I 
recollect  that  in  the  Thirty-eighth  or  Thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress he  made  a  violent  attack  upon  Mr.  Lincoln,  and 
the  Republican  Party.  The  House  was  in  committee,  and 
I  was  in  the  chair.  Consequently  I  listened  attentively 
to  the  speech.  It  was  carefully  prepared  and  modeled  ap- 
parently upon  Junius  and  Burke — a  model  which  time  has  de- 
stroyed. 

Of  the  members  of  the  House  during  the  war  period, 
Henry  Winter  Davis  was  the  most  accomplished  speaker. 
Mr.  Davis'  head  was  a  study.  In  front  it  was  not  only  in- 
tellectual, it  was  classical — a  model  for  an  artist.  The  back 
of  his  head  was  that  of  a  prize  fighter,  and  he  combined  the 
scholar  and  gentleman  with  the  pugilist.     His  courage  was 


SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS  3 

constitutional  and  he  was  ready  to  make  good  his  positions 
whether  by  argument  or  blows.  His  speeches  in  the  deliv- 
ery were  very  attractive.  His  best  speech,  as  I  recall  his 
efforts,  was  a  speech  in  defence  of  Admiral  Dupont.  That 
speech  involved  an  attack  upon  the  Navy  Department.  Alex- 
ander H.  Rice,  of  Massachusetts,  was  the  chairman  of  the 
Naval  Committee.  He  appeared  for  the  Navy  Department 
in  an  able  defence.  Mr.  Rice's  abilities  were  not  of  the 
highest  order,  but  his  style  was  polished,  and  he  was 
thoroughly  equipped  for  the  defence.  He  had  the  Navy 
Department  behind  him,  and  a  department  usually  has 
a  plausible  reason  or  excuse  for  anything  that  it 
does. 

An  estimate  of  Mr.  Davis'  style  as  a  writer  and  his 
quality  as  an  orator  may  be  gained  from  a  speech  en- 
titled:— "Reasons  for  Refusing  to  Part  Company  with 
the  South,"  which  he  delivered  in  February,  1861,  and 
in  which  he  set  forth  the  condition  of  the  country  as 
it  then  appeared  to  him.  These  extracts  give  some  sup- 
port to  the  opinion  entertained  by  many  that  Mr.  Da- 
vis was  the  leading  political  orator  of  the  Civil  War 
period : 

"  We  are  at  the  end  of  the  insane  revel  of  partisan  li- 
cense, which,  for  thirty  years,  has,  in  the  United  States, 
worn  the  mask  of  government.  We  are  about  to  close  the 
masquerade  by  the  dance  of  death.  The  nations  of  the  world 
look  anxiously  to  see  if  the  people,  ere  they  tread  that  meas- 
ure, will  come  to  themselves. 

"  Yet  in  the  early  youth  of  our  national  life  we  are  already 
exhausted  by  premature  excesses.  The  corruption  of  our 
political  maxims  has  relaxed  the  tone  of  public  morals  and 
degraded  the  public  authorities  from  terror  to  the  accom- 
plices of  evil-doers.  Platforms  for  fools — plunder  for  thieves 
— offices   for  service — ^power   for  ambition — unity  in  these 


4  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

essentials — diversity  in  the  immaterial  matters  of  policy  and 
legislation — charity  for  every  frailty — the  voice  of  the  people 
is  the  voice  of  God — these  maxims  have  sunk  into  the  public 
mind;  have  presided  at  the  administration  of  public  affairs, 
have  almost  effaced  the  very  idea  of  public  duty.  The  Gov- 
ernment under  their  disastrous  influence  has  gradually 
ceased  to  fertilize  the  fields  of  domestic  and  useful  legis- 
lation, ajid  pours  itself,  like  an  impetuous  torrent,  along  the 
barren  ravine  of  party  and  sectional  strife.  It  has  been 
shorn  of  every  prerogative  that  wore  the  austere  aspect  of 
authority  and  power. 

"  The  consequence  of  this  demoralization  is  that  States, 
without  regard  to  the  Federal  Government,  assume  to  stand 
face  to  face  and  wage  their  own  quarrels,  to  adjust  their 
own  difficulties,  to  impute  to  each  other  every  wrong,  to 
insist  that  individual  States  shall  remedy  every  grievance, 
and  they  denounce  failure  to  do  so  as  cause  of  civil  war 
between  the  States ;  and  as  if  the  Constitution  were  silent 
and  dead  and  the  power  of  the  Union  utterly  inadequate  to 
keep  the  peace  between  them,  unconstitutional  commission- 
ers flit  from  State  to  State,  or  assemble  at  the  national  capital 
to  counsel  peace  or  instigate  war.  Sir,  these  are  the  causes 
which  lie  at  the  bottom  of  the  present  dangers.  These  causes 
which  have  rendered  them  possible  and  made  them  serious, 
must  be  removed  before  they  can  ever  be  permanently  cured. 
They  shake  the  fabric  of  our  National  Government.  It  is  to 
this  fearful  demoralization  of  the  Government  and  the  people 
that  we  must  ascribe  the  disastrous  defections  which  now 
perplex  us  with  the  fear  of  change  in  all  that  constituted  our 
greatness.  The  operation  of  the  Government  has  been  with- 
drawn from  the  great  public  interests,  in  order  that  com- 
peting parties  might  not  be  embarrassed  in  the  struggle  for 
power  by  diversities  of  opinion  upon  questions  of  policy;  and 
the  public  mind,  in  that  struggle,  has  been  exclusively  turned 


SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS  5 

on  the  slavery  question,  which  no  interest  required  to  be 
touched  by  any  department  of  this  Government.  On  that 
subject  there  are  widely  marked  diversities  of  opinion  and 
interest  in  the  different  portions  of  the  Confederacy,  with 
few  mediating  influences  to  soften  the  collision.  In  the 
struggle  for  party  power,  the  two  great  regions  of  the  coun- 
try have  been  brought  face  to  face  upon  the  most  dangerous 
of  all  subjects  of  agitation.  The  authority  of  the  Govern- 
ment was  relaxed  just  when  its  power  was  about  to  be  as- 
sailed; and  the  people,  emancipated  from  every  control  and 
their  passions  inflamed  by  the  fierce  struggle  for  the  Presi- 
dency, were  the  easy  prey  of  revolutionary  audacity. 

"  Within  two  months  after  a  formal,  peaceful,  regular 
election  of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  United  States,  in  which 
the  whole  body  of  the  people  of  every  State  competed  with 
zeal  for  the  prize,  without  any  new  event  intervening,  with- 
out any  new  grievances  alleged,  without  any  new  menaces 
having  been  made,  we  have  seen,  in  the  short  course  of  one 
month,  a  small  portion  of  the  population  of  six  States  tran- 
scend the  bounds  at  a  single  leap  at  once  of  the  State  and  the 
national  constitutions;  usurp  the  extraordinary  prerogative 
of  repealing  the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  exclude  the  great 
mass  of  their  fellow-citizens  from  the  protection  of  the  Con- 
stitution ;  declare  themselves  emancipated  from  the  obligations 
which  the  Constitution  pronounces  to  be  supreme  over  them 
and  over  their  laws;  arrogate  to  themselves  all  the  preroga- 
tives of  independent  power;  rescind  the  acts  of  cession  of 
the  public  property ;  occupy  the  public  offices ;  seize  the  fort- 
resses of  the  United  States  confided  to  the  faith  of  the 
people  among  whom  they  were  placed;  embezzle  the  public 
arms  concentrated  there  for  the  defence  of  the  United  States ; 
array  thousands  of  men  in  arms  against  the  United  States; 
and  actually  wage  war  on  the  Union  by  besieging  two  of 
their  fortresses  and  firing  on  a  vessel  bearing,  under  the 


6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

flag  of  the  United  States,  reinforcements  and  provisions  to 
one  of  tliem.  The  very  boundaries  of  right  and  wrung  seem 
obliterated  when  we  see  a  Cabinet  minister  engaged  for 
months  in  deHberately  changing  the  distribution  of  pubHc 
arms  to  places  in  the  hands  of  those  about  to  resist  the 
public  authority,  so  as  to  place  within  their  grasp  means 
of  waging  war  against  the  United  States  greater  than  they 
ever  used  against  a  foreign  foe;  and  another  Cabinet  minis- 
ter, still  holding  his  commission  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  still  a  confidential  adviser  of  the  President,  still 
bound  by  his  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  himself  a  commissioner  from  his  own  State  to  an- 
other of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  and 
extending  another  part  of  the  same  great  scheme  of  rebellion; 
and  the  doom  of  the  Republic  seems  sealed  when  the  Presi- 
dent, surrounded  by  such  ministers,  permits,  without  rebuke, 
the  Government  to  be  betrayed,  neglects  the  solemn  warn- 
ing of  the  first  soldier  of  the  age,  till  almost  every  fort 
is  a  prey  to  domestic  treason,  and  accepts  assurances  of 
peace  in  his  time  at  the  expense  of  leaving  the  national 
honor  unguarded.  His  message  gives  aid  and  comfort  to 
the  enemies  of  the  Union,  by  avowing  his  inability  to  main- 
tain its  integrity;  and,  paralyzed  and  stupefied,  he  stands 
amid  the  crash  of  the  falling  Republic,  still  muttering.  '  Not 
in  my  time,  not  in  my  time :  after  me  the  deluge ! '  " 

Soon  after  Mr.  Colfax's  election  as  speaker  of  the  Thirty- 
eighth  Congress,  I  met  him  in  a  restaurant.  He  expressed 
surprise  that  he  had  not  heard  from  me  in  regard  to  a  place 
upon  a  committee.  I  said  that  the  subject  did  not  occupy  my 
thoughts — that  I  had  work  enough  whether  I  was  upon  a 
committee  or  not.  He  expressed  himself  as  disturbed  by 
the  fact  that  he  could  not  give  me  as  good  a  place  as  he 
wished  to  give  me.  I  tried  to  relieve  his  mind  upon  that 
point.     In  all  my  legislative  experience  I  never  made  any 


SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS  7 

suggestion  as  to  committee  work.  Mr.  Colfax  placed  me 
upon  the  Judiciary  Committee,  which,  in  the  end,  was  the 
best  place  to  which  I  could  have  been  assigned. 

Mr.  Colfax  was  made  of  consequence  in  the  country  by 
the  newspapers,  and  he  was  ruined  by  his  timidity.  If  he 
had  admitted  that  he  was  an  owner  of  stock  in  the  Credit 
Mobilier  Company,  not  much  could  have  been  made  against 
him.  His  denials  and  explanations,  which  were  either  false 
or  disingenuous,  and  his  final  admission  of  a  fact  which  im- 
plied that  he  had  been  in  the  receipt  of  a  quarterly  payment 
from  a  post-office  contractor,  completed  his  ruin.  There 
was  a  time  when  the  country  over-estimated  his  ability.  He 
was  a  genial,  kind  man,  with  social  qualities  and  an  abund- 
ance of  information  in  reference  to  men  in  the  United  States 
and  to  recent  and  passing  politics.  He  had  newspaper  knowl- 
edge and  aptitude  for  gathering  what  may  be  called  infor- 
mation as  distinguished  from  learning.  He  was  a  victim  to 
two  passions  or  purposes  in  life,  that  are  in  a  degree  incon- 
sistent— public  life  and  money-making.  Instances  there  have 
been  of  success,  but  I  have  never  known  a  case  where  a 
public  man  has  not  suffered  in  reputation  by  the  knowl- 
edge that  he  had  accumulated  a  fortune  while  he  was  en- 
gaged in  the  public  service.  As  a  speaker  of  the  House, 
Colfax  was  agreeable  and  popular,  but  he  lacked  in  discipline. 
His  rule  was  lax,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  from  the 
commencement  of  his  administration  there  had  been  a  de- 
cline in  what  may  be  termed  the  morale  of  the  House.  Some- 
thing of  its  reputation  for  dignity  and  decorum  had  been 
lost. 

A  young  man  from  New  York,  Mr.  Chanler,  made  a  speech 
in  the  Thirty-eighth  or  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  which  seemed 
to  favor  the  Confederacy.  This  phase  of  his  speech  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  he  was  a  transcendental  State  Rights  advocate. 
He  did  not  believe  in  secession,  as  a  wise  and  proper  policy, 


8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

but  he  did  believe  in  the  right  of  a  State  to  consult  itself  as  to 
its  continuance  in  the  Union.  Chanler  was  not  a  strong  man 
and  he  owed  his  election,  probably,  to  his  connection  with 
the  Astor  family.  He  failed  to  make  the  political  distinction 
clear  to  the  mind  of  the  House  and  he  was  followed  by 
General  Schenck  in  a  severe  speech.  Chanler  ex[)lained  and 
asserted  that  he  was  no  secessionist — that  he  was  for  the 
Union — that  he  had  served  with  the  New  York  Seventh — 
and  that  he  had  made  a  tender  to  General  Dix  of  service  on 
his  staff,  but  that  he  had  not  received  a  reply  from  General 
Dix. 

Thereupon  S.  S.  Cox,  who  then  represented  a  district  in 
Ohio,  made  a  jocose  reply  to  Schenck  and  a  like  defence  of 
Chanler  and  ended  with  the  remark  that  he  hoped  his  "  col- 
league regretted  having  been  g^jilty  of  a  groundless  attack 
upon  a  soldier  of  the  Republic."  I  went  over  to  Cox  to 
congratulate  him  upon  his  defence  of  Chanler,  and  in  reply 
Cox  said :  "  The  funniest  part  of  it  is  that  Chanler  took  it 
all  in  earnest  and  came  to  my  seat  and  thanked  me  for 
my  speech." 

Cox  had  no  malice  in  his  nature  and  there  was  always  a 
doubt  whether  he  had  any  sincerity  in  his  politics.  He  had 
no  sympathy  with  the  rebellion,  and,  generally,  he  voted  ap- 
propriations for  the  army  and  the  navy.  He  was  sincere  in 
his  personal  friendships,  and  his  friendships  were  not  upon 
party  lines.  In  his  political  action  he  seemed  more  anxious 
to  annoy  his  opponents  than  to  extinguish  them.  His 
speeches  were  short,  pointed,  and  entertaining.  He  was  a 
favorite  with  the  House,  but  his  influence  upon  its  action 
was  very  slight.  Those  who  acquire  and  retain  power  are 
the  earnest  and  persistent  men.  When  Cox  had  made  his 
speech  and  expended  his  jokes  he  was  content.  The  fate  of 
a  measure  did  not  much  disturb  or  even  concern  him. 

Cox  was  a  party  to  an  afifair  in  the  House  which  illustrated 


SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS  9 

the  characteristics  of  Thaddeus  Stevens,  or  "  Old  Thad,"  as 
he  was  called.  Late  in  the  war,  or  soon  after  its  close,  Mr. 
Stevens  introduced  a  bill  to  appropriate  $800,000  to  reim- 
burse the  State  of  Pennsylvania  for  expenses  incurred  in 
repelling  invasions  and  suppressing  insurrections.  The  bill 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  of  which 
Stevens  was  chairman.  Without  much  delay  and  before  the 
holidays,  Stevens  reported  the  bill.  There  was  some  debate, 
in  which  my  colleague,  Mr.  Dawes,  took  part  against  the 
bill.  Finally,  the  House  postponed  the  bill  till  after  the  holi- 
days. During  the  recess  I  examined  the  question  by  mak- 
ing inquiries  at  the  War  and  Treasury  departments,  where 
I  found  that  authority  existed  for  reimbursing  States  for  all 
expenditures  actually  made  and  for  the  payment  of  all  troops 
that  had  been  mustered  into  the  service.  Thus  the  real  pur- 
pose of  the  bill  was  apparent.  During  the  Antietam  and 
Gettysburg  campaigns  bodies  of  troops  had  been  organized 
for  defence  and  expenses  had  been  incurred  by  towns  and 
counties,  but  no  actual  service  had  been  performed.  It  was 
intended  by  the  appropriation  to  provide  for  the  payment  of 
these  expenses.  I  prepared  a  brief  and  gave  it  to  Mr.  Dawes, 
who  used  it  in  the  debate.  When  it  became  apparent  that  the 
bill  would  be  lost.  Cox  rose  and  moved  to  insert  after  the 
word  Pennsylvania,  the  words  Maryland,  West  Virginia, 
Ohio,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Kansas  and  the 
Territory  of  New  Mexico.  Also  to  strike  out  $800,000  and 
insert  ten  million  dollars.  These  amendments  brought  to 
the  support  of  the  measure  the  members  from  all  those  States, 
and  the  bill  was  passed.  The  Senate  never  acted  upon  it. 
1  was  indignant  at  the  action  of  the  House,  and  I  said  to 
Stevens,  whose  seat  was  near  to  mine :  "  This  is  the  most 
outrageous  thing  that  I  have  seen  on  the  floor  of  the  House." 
Stevens  doubled  his  fist  but  not  in  anger,  shook  it  in  my  face 
and  said :    "  You  rascal,  if  you  had  allowed  me  to  have  my 


10  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

rights  I  should  not  have  been  compelled  to  make  a  corrupt 
bargain  in  order  to  get  them."  Thus  he  admitted  his  ar- 
rangement with  Cox  and  the  character  of  it,  and  laid  the 
responsibility  upon  me. 

Mr.  Stevens  was  a  tyrant  in  his  rule  as  leader  of  the 
House.  He  was  at  once  able,  bold  and  unscrupulous.  He 
was  an  anti-slavery  man,  a  friend  to  temperance  and  an 
earnest  supporter  of  the  public  school  system,  and  he  would 
not  have  hesitated  to  promote  those  objects  by  arrange- 
ments with  friends  or  enemies.  He  was  unselfish  in  personal 
matters,  but  his  public  policy  regarded  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  the  Republican  Party.  The  more  experienced 
members  of  the  House  avoided  controversy  with  Stevens. 
First  and  last  many  a  new  member  was  extinguished  by  his 
sarcastic  thrusts.  As  for  himself  no  one  could  terrorize 
him.  I  recall  an  occasion  near  the  close  of  a  session,  when, 
as  it  was  important  to  get  a  bill  out  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  he  remained  upon  his  feet  or  upon  his  one  foot  and 
assailed  every  member  who  proposed  an  amendment.  Some- 
times his  remarks  were  personal  and  sometimes  they  were 
aimed  at  the  member's  State.  In  a  few  minutes  he  cowed 
the  House,  and  secured  the  adoption  of  his  motion  for  the 
committee  to  rise  and  report  the  bill  to  the  House. 

He  must  have  been  a  very  good  lawyer.  The  impeach- 
ment article  which  received  the  best  support  was  from  his 
pen.  He  possessed  wit,  sarcasm  and  irony  in  every  form. 
In  public  all  these  weapons  were  poisoned,  but  in  private  he 
was  usually  genial.  On  one  occasion  Judge  Oliii  of  New 
York  was  speaking  and  in  his  excitement  he  walked  down 
and  up  the  aisle  passing  Stevens'  seat.  At  length  Stevens 
said:   "  Olin.  do  you  expect  to  get  mileage  for  this  speech?  " 

During  the  controversy  with  Andrew  Johnson,  Thayer, 
of  Pennsylvania  became  excited  upon  a  matter  of  no  con- 
sequence, denounced  the  report  of  a  committee,  and  in  the 


SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS  ii 

course  of  his  remarks  said :  "  They  ask  us  to  go  it  bhnd." 
Judge  Hale,  of  New  York,  with  an  innocent  expression,  said 
he  would  like  to  have  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
inform  the  House  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "go  it 
blind."  Stevens  said  at  once :  "  It  means  following  Ray- 
mond." The  pertinency  of  the  hit  was  in  the  circumstance 
that  Raymond  was  supporting  Johnson,  and  that  Hale  was 
following  Raymond,  not  from  conviction  but  for  the  reason 
that  they  had  been  classmates  in  college. 

Robert  S.  Hale  was  a  man  of  large  ability  and  a  success- 
ful lawyer.  During  his  term  in  Congress  he  was  a  prominent 
candidate  for  a  seat  upon  the  bench  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
for  the  State  of  New  York.  At  a  critical  moment  he  ap- 
peared in  the  House  in  the  role  of  a  reformer  and  pro- 
ceeded to  arraign  members  for  their  action  in  regard  to  the 
measure  known  as  the  "  salary  grab."  The  debate  showed 
that  Hale  was  involved  in  the  business  tO'  such  an  extent 
that  he  lost  his  standing  in  the  House  and  imperiled  his 
chance  of  obtaining  a  seat  upon  the  bench  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals. 

The  bill  for  the  increase  of  the  salaries  of  public  officers 
was  a  proper  bill,  with  the  single  exception  that  it  should 
have  been  prospective  as  to  the  members  of  Congress.  It 
added  $2,500  to  the  annual  salary  of  the  Congressman  or 
$5,000  for  a  term.  The  temptation  to  give  the  benefit  of  the 
increase  to  the  members  of  the  then  existing  House  was 
too  strong  for  their  judgment  and  virtue.  When,  however, 
the  indignation  of  the  people  was  manifested,  more  than  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  each  House  sought  refuge  in  a 
variety  of  subterfuges.  Some  neglected  to  collect  the  in- 
crease, others  who  had  received  the  added  sum,  returned  it 
to  the  Treasury  upon  a  variety  of  pretexts.  Some  endowed 
schools  or  libraries,  and  a  minority  received  what  the  law 
allowed  them  and  upon  an  assertion  of  their  right  to  receive 


12  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

it.  Outside  of  the  criminal  classes  there  has  but  seldom 
been  a  more  melancholy  exhibition  of  the  weakness  of  human 
nature.  The  members  seemed  not  to  realize  that  the  wrong 
was  in  the  votes  for  which  those  members  were  alone  re- 
sponsible who  had  sustained  the  bill,  and  that  the  acceptance 
of  the  salary  which  the  law  allowed  was  not  only  a  right 
but  a  duty.  At  the  end  those  members  who  took  the  salary 
and  defended  their  acts  enjoyed  the  larger  share  of  public 
respect.  Indeed,  not  one  of  the  shufflers  gained  anything 
by  the  course  that  he  had  pursued.  The  public  reasoned, 
and  reasoned  justly  that  they  would  have  kept  the  money  if 
they  had  dared  to  do  so. 

Similar  conduct  ruined  many  of  the  members  of  Con- 
gress who  were  beneficiaries  of  the  Credit  Mobilier  scheme. 
Mr.  Samuel  Hooper  was  a  large  holder  of  the  stock,  but 
being  a  man  of  fortune  the  public  accepted  that  fact  as  a 
defence  against  the  suggestion  that  the  stock  had  been  placed 
in  his  hands  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  his  action  as  a 
member  of  Congress.  With  others  the  case  was  different. 
Many  were  poor  men.  They  had  paid  no  money  for  the 
stock.  Mr.  Ames  made  the  subscriptions,  carried  the  stocks, 
and  turned  over  the  profits  to  those  who  had  paid  nothing 
and  had  risked  nothing.  When  the  investigation  was  threat- 
ened, many  of  those  who  were  involved  ran  to  shelter  under 
a  variety  of  excuses  and  some  of  them  hoped  to  escape 
by  the  aid  of  falsehood  which  ripened  into  perjury  when 
the  investigation  was  made.  A  few  admitted  ownership 
and  asserted  their  right  to  ownership.  Those  men  escaped 
with  but  little  loss  of  prestige.  Of  the  others,  some  retained 
their  hold  upon  public  office  and  some  were  advanced  to 
higher  places,  but  they  carried  always  the  smell  of  the  smoke 
of  corruption  upon  their  garments. 

Judge  Hale  defended  Mr.  Colfax,  but  at  the  end  his  condi- 
tion was  worse  than  at  the  beginning. 


SERVICE  IN  CONGRESS  13 

There  is  something  of  error  in  our  public  poHcy.  With  a 
few  exceptions  the  salaries  of  public  officers  are  too  low — 
in  many  cases  they  are  meager.  This  fact  furnishes  a  pre- 
text for  efforts  to  make  money  while  in  the  public  service. 
All  these  efforts  are  adverse  to  the  public  interests  and  often 
the  proceedings  are  tainted  with  corruption.  A  member  of 
Congress  ought  to  receive  $7,500  and  a  Cabinet  officer  cannot 
live  in  a  manner  corresponding  to  his  station  upon  less  than 
$15,000.  Adequate  salaries  would  not  prevent  speculation 
on  the  part  of  public  officers,  but  they  could  not  offer  as  an 
excuse  for  their  acts  the  meager  salaries  allowed  by  the 
government.  From  the  "  salary  grab ''  bill  there  were  two 
good  results.     The  President's  salary  was  increased  to  $50,- 

000  and  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  received  $10,000 
instead  of  $6,000  per  annum.  It  has  not  been  any  part  of 
my  purpose  in  what  I  have  said  in  favor  of  an  increase  of 
salaries  to  furnish  means  for  campaign  expenses  by  candi- 
dates either  before  or  after  nominations  have  been  made. 

If  the  statements  are  trustworthy  that  have  been  made 
publicly  in  recent  years  the  conclusion  cannot  be  avoided 
that  money  is  used  in  elections  for  corrupt  purposes — some- 
times to  secure  nominations  and  sometimes  to  secure  elec- 
tions, when  nominations  have  been  made.  There  are  proper 
uses  for  money  in  political  contests,  but  candidates  should 
not  be  required  to  make  contributions  in  return  for  sup- 
port. If  the  statements  now  made  frequently  and  boldly, 
are  truthful  statements,  then  we  are  moving  towards  a 
condition  of  affairs  when  the  offices  of  government  will  be 
divided  between  rich  men  and  men  who  will  seek  office  for 
the  purpose  of  becoming  rich,  A  general  condition  cannot 
be  proved  by  the  experiences  of  individuals,  but  the  ex- 
periences of  individuals  may  indicate  a  general  condition. 

1  cannot  doubt  that  an  unwholesome  change  in  the  use  of 
money  in  elections  has  taken  place  in  the  last  fifty  years.    A 


14  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

gentleman  now  living  ( 1901),  who  was  a  member  of  the  Na- 
tional Committee  of  the  Democratic  Party  in  the  year  1856  is 
my  authority  for  the  statement  that  the  total  sum  of  money  at 
the  command  of  the  committee  in  the  campaign  for  Mr. 
Buchanan  was  less  than  twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 

1  mention  my  own  experience  and  in  the  belief  that  it 
was  not  exceptional.  From  1840  to  1850  I  was  the  candidate 
of  the  Democratic  Party  of  Groton  for  representative  of  the 
town  in  the  general  court.  The  party  in  the  town  met  its 
moderate  expenses  by  voluntary  contributions.  I  contributed 
■with  others,  but  never  upon  the  ground  that  I  was  a  candi- 
date. We  paid  our  local  expenses.  We  paid  nothing  for 
expenses  elsewhere,  and  we  did  not  receive  anything  from 
outside  sources.  In  1844-46  and  1848  I  was  the  candidate  of 
the  Democratic  Party  for  the  National  House  of  Representa- 
tives. I  canvassed  the  district  at  my  own  charge.  I  did 
not  make  any  contribution  to  any  one  for  any  purpose,  and 
I  did  not  receive  financial  aid  from  any  source.  The  subject 
was  never  mentioned  to  me  or  by  me  in  conversation  or 
correspondence  with  any  one.  Again.  I  may  say  the  sub- 
ject was  not  mentioned  in  my  canvass  for  the  office  of  Gover- 
nor in  the  years  1849- 1850  ^"d  1851. 

In  1862  I  became  the  candidate  of  the  Republican  Party  for 
a  seat  in  Congress.  After  my  nomination  the  District  Com- 
mittee asked  me  for  a  contribution  of  one  hundred  dollars. 
I  met  their  request.  The  request  was  repeated  and  answered 
in  1864,  1866  and  1868.  On  one  occasion  I  received  a  re- 
turn of  forty-two  dollars  with  a  statement  that  the  full 
amount  of  my  contribution  had  not  been  expended. 

While  General  Butler  was  in  the  army,  Mr.  James  Brooks, 
a  member  from  the  city  of  New  York,  charged  him,  in  an 
elaborate  speech,  with  having  taken  about  fifty  thousand  dol- 
lars from  a  bank  in  New  Orleans,  and  appropriated  the  same 
to  his  own  use.     General  Butler  was  then  at  Willard's  Hotel. 


SERVICE  IN   CONGRESS  15 

That  evening  I  called  upon  Butler,  and  said  to  him  that  if 
'he  had  any  answer  to  the  charge,  I  would  reply  the  next 
day.  I  had  secured  the  floor  through  Mr.  Stevens,  who  moved 
the  adjournment  upon  a  private  understanding  that  he  would 
yield  to  me  in  case  I  wished  to  reply.  As  Butler  lived  in  my 
district  and  as  I  was  ignorant  of  the  facts,  I  avoided  taking 
the  floor  lest  an  expectation  should  be  created  which  I  could 
not  meet.  However,  I  found  Butler  entirely  prepared  for  the 
contest.  From  his  letter  books  he  read  to  me  the  correspond- 
ence with  the  Treasury  Department,  from  which  it  appeared 
that  the  money  had  been  turned  over  to  the  department,  for 
which  Butler  had  the  proper  receipts.  The  money  had  been 
seized  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  the  property  of  the  Con- 
federacy and  was  in  the  bank  awaiting  an  opportunity  to  be 
transferred.  The  morning  following,  I  called  upon  Butler 
and  obtained  copies  of  the  correspondence  that  had  been  pre- 
pared the  preceding  night.  I  rode  to  the  Capitol  with  Butler 
and  on  the  way  we  prepared  the  letters  in  chronological  order. 
Having  obtained  the  floor  through  Mr.  Stevens  I  made  the 
answer  which  consisted  chiefly  of  the  letters.  It  was  so  con- 
clusive that  the  subject  was  never  again  mentioned  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  On  that  occasion  Butler's  habit 
of  making  and  keeping  a  full  record  of  his  doings  served  to 
release  him  from  very  serious  charges,  and  so  speedily  that 
the  charges  did  not  obtain  a  lodgment  in  the  public  mind. 

Upon  another  occasion  Brooks  made  an  attack  upon  Sec- 
retary Chase  and  charged  various  off"ences  upon  S.  M.  Clark, 
then  the  chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing. 
Some  of  the  charges  were  personal,  and  some  of  them  official. 
I  called  upon  the  Secretary  at  his  house,  as  I  was  on  my  way 
home  from  the  Capitol,  and  gave  him  a  statement  of  the 
charges  made  by  Brooks.  He  seemed  ignorant  of  the  whole 
matter,  and  upon  my  suggestion  that  he  should  ask  Clark  for 
his  explanation  or  defence  he  hesitated,  and  then  asked  me 


i6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

to  call  upon  Clark  for  his  answer.  This  I  declined  and  there 
the  matter  ended.  There  never  was  any  rq^ly  to  Brooks.  In 
the  end  it  may  have  been  as  well,  for  the  charges  are  forgot- 
ten, and  they  are  not  likely  to  be  brought  out  of  the  musty 
volumes  of  debates.  Mr.  Chase's  lack  of  resolution  gave  me 
an  unfavorable  impression  of  his  ability  for  administrative 
affairs. 

Samuel  S.  Randall  first  entered  Congress  in  1862.  Mr. 
Randall's  resources  were  limited.  He  was  not  bred  to  any 
profession,  and  he  was  not  a  man  of  learning  in  any  direc- 
tion. I  cannot  imagine  that  he  had  a  taste  for  study  or  for 
any  kind  of  investigation  aside  from  politics.  By  long  ex- 
perience he  became  familiar  with  parliamentary  proceedings, 
and  from  the  same  source  he  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the 
business  of  the  Government.  He  had  one  essential  quality 
of  leadership:) — a  strong  will.  Moreover,  he  was  destitute, 
apparently,  of  moral  perceptions  in  public  affairs.  Not  that 
he  was  corrupt,  but  as  between  the  Government  and  its  citi- 
zens the  demands  of  what  is  called  justice  seemed  to  have  no 
effect  upon  him.  He  did  not  hesitate  to  delay  the  payment 
of  a  just  claim  in  order  that  the  appropriation  might  be  kept 
within  the  limits  that  he  had  fixed.  This,  not  on  the  ground 
that  the  claim  ought  not  to  be  paid,  but  for  the  reason  that 
the  payment  at  the  time  would  disarrange  the  balance  sheet. 
A  striking  instance  of  his  policy  was  exhibited  in  his  treat- 
ment of  the  land-owners  whose  lands  were  condemned  and 
taken  for  the  reservoir  at  the  end  of  Seventh  Street,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.  The  values  w^re  fixed  by  a  commission  and  by 
juries  under  the  law,  and  when  the  time  for  an  appropriation 
came,  Mr.  Randall  provided  for  fifty  per  cent,  and  carried 
the  remainder  over  to  the  next  year.  The  claimants  were 
entitled  to  full  payment,  but  one  half  was  withheld  for  twelve 
months  without  interest  and  that  while  dead  funds  were  lying 
in  the  Treasury. 


XXIX 

INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

THE  PROCLAMATION  OF  EMANCIPATION 

WHEN  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation,  of  Jan- 
uary I,  1863,  was  issued,  the  closing  sentence 
attracted  universal  attention,  and  in  every  part  of 
the  world  encomiums  were  pronounced  upon  it.  The  words 
are  these :  "  And  upon  this  act,  sincerely  believed  to  be  an 
act  of  justice,  warranted  by  the  Constitution  upon  military 
necessity,  I  invoke  the  considerate  judgment  of  mankind  and 
the  gracious  favor  of  Almighty  God.."  Following  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Proclamation,  and  stimulated,  possibly,  by  the 
reception  given  to  the  sentence  quoted,  there  appeared  claim- 
ants for  the  verbal  authorship  of  the  passage,  or  for  sugges- 
tions which  led  to  its  writing  by  Mr.  Lincoln. 

A  claim  for  exact  authorship  was  set  up  for  Mr.  Chase, 
and  claims  for  suggestions  in  the  nature  of  exact  authorship 
were  made  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Seward  and  in  behalf  of  Mr. 
Sumner. 

The  sentence  quoted  was  furnished  by  Secretary  Chase, 
after  a  very  material  alteration  by  the  President.  He  intro- 
duced the  words  "  zvarranted  by  the  Constitution  upon  mili- 
tary necessity/'  in  place  of  the  phrase,  "  and  of  duty  de- 
manded by  the  circumstances  of  the  country,"  as  written  by 
Mr.  Chase. 

The  main  credit  for  the  introduction  of  the  fortunate 
phrase  is  due  to  Secretary  Chase.     President  Lincoln  placed 

17 


i8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  act  upon  a  legal  basis,  thus  justifying  it  in  law  and  in 
history.  The  sentence  is  what  we  might  have  expected  from 
the  head  and  heart  of  the  man  who  wrote  the  final  sentence  of 
the  first  inaugural  address :  "  The  mystic  chords  of  memory, 
stretching  from  every  battlefield  and  patriot  grave  to  every 
living  heart  and  hearthstone,  all  over  this  broad  land,  will 
yet  swell  the  chorus  of  the  Union,  when  again  touched,  as 
surely  they  will  be  by  the  better  angels  of  our  nature."  Mr, 
Lincoln  had  genius  for  the  work  of  composition,  and  in  him 
the  poetic  quality  was  strong  and  it  was  often  exhibited  in  his 
speeches  and  writings.  The  omission  of  the  sentence  in  ques- 
tion would  so  mar  the  Proclamation  that  it  would  cease  to 
represent  ]\lr.  Lincoln.  Thus  he  became  under  great  obliga- 
tions to  Mr.  Chase. 

It  was  not  in  the  nature  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  close  a  state 
paper,  which  he  could  not  but  have  realized  was  to  take  a  place 
by  the  side  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  with  a  bald 
statement  that  the  freedmen  would  be  received  "  into  the 
armed  service  of  the  United  States  to  garrison  forts,  posi- 
tions, stations,  and  other  places,  and  to  man  vessels  of  all 
sorts  in  said  service." 

In  the  month  of  October,  1863,  the  ladies  of  Chicago  made 
a  request  of  Mr.  Lincoln  for  "  the  original ''  of  his  "  procla- 
mation of  freedom,"  the  same  to  be  disposed  of  "  for  the 
benefit  of  the  soldiers."  The  letter  in  their  behalf  was  writ- 
ten by  Mr.  Arnold,  who  was  then  a  member  of  Congress. 
Improvidently,  I  think  we  may  say,  Mr.  Lincoln  yielded  to 
their  request  for  the  original  draft  of  the  Proclamation  to  be 
sold  for  the  benefit  of  the  fair.  Its  transmission  was  accom- 
panied by  a  letter,  written  by  Mr.  Lincoln. 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  19 

"  Executive  Mansion, 

"  Washington, 
"  October  26,  1863. 

"Ladies  having  in  charge  The  North  Western  Fair  for  the 
Sanitary  Commission,  Chicago,  III. 

"  According  to  the  request  made  in  your  behalf,  the  orig- 
inal draft  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  is  herewith 
enclosed.  The  formal  words  at  the  top  and  at  the  conclusion, 
except  the  signature,  you  perceive,  are  not  in  my  handwriting. 
They  were  written  at  the  State  Department,  by  whom  I  know 
not.  The  printed  part  was  cut  from  a  copy  of  the  preliminary 
Proclamation  and  pasted  on  merely  to  save  writing. 

"  I  have  some  desire  to  retain  the  paper,  but  if  it  shall  con- 
tribute to  the  relief  of  the  soldiers,  that  will  be  better. 

"  Your  obt.  servt., 

"  A.  LINCOLN." 

In  technical  strictness  the  original  Proclamation  was  of 
the  archives  of  the  Department  of  State  when  the  signature 
of  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State  had  been  affixed 
thereto,  and  its  transfer  by  Mr.  Lincoln  was  an  act  not  within 
his  competency  as  President,  or  as  the  author  of  the  Procla- 
mation. 

This  point,  however,  is  wholly  speculative,  but  the  country 
and  posterity  will  be  interested  in  the  fate  of  the  original  of 
a  document  which  is  as  immortal  as  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. The  Proclamation  was  sold  to  the  Honorable 
Thomas  B.  Bryan  of  Chicago  for  the  sum  of  three  thousand 
dollars  and  it  was  then  presented  by  him  to  the  Soldiers'  Home 
of  Chicago,  of  which  he  was  then  the  President.  That  position 
he  still  retains.  The  document  was  deposited  in  the  rooms 
of  the  Chicago  Historical  Society,  where  it  was  destroyed  in 
the  great  fire  of  1871. 


20  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Fortunately  the  managers  of  the  fair  had  secured  the  prep- 
aration of  fac  si)nilc  copies  of  the  Proclamation.  These  were 
sold  in  large  numhers,  and  thus  many  thousands  of  dollars 
were  added  to  the  receipts  of  the  fair. 

The  managers  of  the  Soldiers'  Home  were  offered  twenty- 
five  thousand  dollars  for  the  original  Proclamation.*  The 
offer  came  from  a  showman  who  expected  to  reimburse  him- 
self by  the  exhibition  of  the  paper. 

The  original  now  on  the  files  of  the  State  Department  is 
not  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  it  has  therefore 
no  value  derived  from  Mr.  Lincoln's  personality. 

When  I  entered  upon  the  inquiry,  which  has  resulted  in  the 
preparation  of  this  paper,  I  was  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the 
original  Proclamation  had  been  destroyed,  and  it  was  my 
purpose  to  secure  its  return  to  the  archives  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State.  That  is  now  impossible.  Its  destruction  has 
given  value  to  the  fac  simile  copies.  Many  thousands  of 
them  are  in  the  possession  of  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
and  they  will  be  preserved  and  transmitted  as  souvenirs  of 
the  greatest  act  of  the  most  illustrious  American  of  this 
century. 

In  the  early  autumn  of  1864  a  meeting  w^as  held  in  Faneuil 
Hall  in  honor  of  the  capture  of  Atlanta  by  the  army  under 
General  Sherman,  and  the  battle  in  Mobile  Bay  under  the  lead 
of  Admiral  Farragut.  Strange  as  the  fact  may  novr  appear, 
those  historical  events  were  not  accepted  with  satisfaction  by 
all  the  citizens  of  Boston.  The  leading  Democratic  paper 
gave  that  kind  of  advice  that  may  be  found,  usually,  in  the 
columns  of  hostile  journals,  when  passing  events  are  un- 
friendly, or  when  there  is  an  adverse  trend  of  public  opinion. 
Hard  words  should  not  be  used  and  nothing  should  be  said 
of  a  partisan  character.  Such  was  the  advice,  and  a  large 
body    of    men    assembled    who    were    opposed    to    partisan 

♦Letter  of  the  Honorable  Thomas  B.  Bryan. 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  21 

speeches.  They  were  known  as  the  McClellan  Club  of  the 
North  End  of  Boston  and  they  were  sufficient  in  numbers, 
when  standing,  to  fill  the  main  floor  in  front  of  the  ros- 
trum, which  at  that  time  was  not  provided  with  seats.  The 
meeting  was  called  by  Republicans  and  it  was  conducted 
under  the  auspices  of  Republicans.  Governor  Andrew  was  to 
preside  and  Governor  Everett,  with  others,  had  been  invited 
to  speak.  Governor  Andrew  was  not  blessed  with  a  command- 
ing voice  and  it  was  drowned  or  smothered  by  the  hisses,  cheers 
and  cat-call  cries  of  the  hostile  audience  in  front  of  him. 
The  efforts  of  the  sympathetic  audience  in  the  galleries  were 
of  no  avail.  Mr.  Everett's  letter  was  then  read,  but  not  a 
sentence  of  it  was  understood  by  any  person  in  the  assem- 
bly. Next  came  Mr.  Sennott,  an  Irishman,  a  lawyer,  and  a 
man  of  large  learning  in  knowledge  and  attainments  not 
adapted  to  general  use.  He  had  then  but  recently  abandoned 
the  Democratic  Party,  but  there  was  a  stain  upon  his  reputa- 
tion, traceable  to  the  fact  that  in  the  year  1859  he  had  volun- 
teered to  aid  in  the  legal  defence  of  John  Brown  at  Harper's 
Ferry.  The  city  of  Boston  could  not  have  offered  a  person 
less  acceptable  to  the  crowd  in  front  of  the  speaker.  Mr. 
Sennott's  voice  was  weak  and  of  the  art  of  using  what  power 
he  possessed  he  had  no  knowledge.  His  speech  was  not 
heard  by  anyone  in  the  assembly.  By  the  arrangement  I  was 
to  follow  Mr.  Sennott.  I  had  had  some  experience  with  hos- 
tile audiences,  and  in  the  year  1862  I  had  been  interrupted  in 
a  country  town  of  Massachusetts  by  stones  thrown  through 
the  windows  of  a  hall  in  which  I  was  speaking  upon  the  war 
and  the  administration. 

As  I  sat  upon  the  platform  I  studied  my  audience  and  I 
resolved  upon  my  course.  I  had  one  fixed  resolution — I 
should  get  a  hearing  or  I  should  spend  the  night  in  the  hall. 
Something  of  the  character  of  my  reception  and  the  results 
reached  may  be  gained  from  the  report  in  the  Boston  Journal, 


22  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

and  I  copy  tlie  report  without  alteration,  premising  however, 
that  some  minutes  passed  before  I  secured  a  quiet  hearing: 

SPEECH    ON    THE   CHICAGO    RESOLUTION 

Fellozv  Citizens:  It  dq^ends  very  much  upon  what  we 
believe  as  to  the  future  of  this  country  and  the  rights  of  the 
people,  whether  we  rejoice  or  mourn  in  consequence  of  the 
events  in  Mobile  Bay  and  l>efore  Atlanta.  If  it  was  true 
on  the  30th  day  of  last  month  that  the  people  of  this  country 
ought  to  take  immediate  efforts  for  the  cessation  of  hostil- 
ities, then,  gentlemen,  we  have  cause  to  mourn  rather  than  to 
rejoice.  I  understand  that  there  were  some  people  in  this 
country  who,  before  the  30th  of  August,  since  this  war 
opened,  had  not,  as  an  aggregate  body  of  men,  expressed  their 
opinions  in  reference  to  this  war,  who  then  declared  that  it 
ought  to  cease.  (A  voice — "They're  few.")  I  observed  in 
a  newspaper  published  in  this  city  two  observations  within 
the  last  two  days.  One  was  that  they  were  afraid  hard  names 
would  be  used;  and  the  other  was  that  there  was  some  appre- 
hension that  this  meeting  to-night  would  have  some  political 
aspect  or  influence.  (Voices — "No!  No!")  I  thought  it 
likely  enough  that  it  would  (laughter  and  applause)  because 
I  observed  in  the  newspapers  that  it  was  called  to  express 
congratulations  over  the  events  which  have  taken  place  in 
Mobile  Bay  and  before  Atlanta,  and  I  thought  that  I  had 
observed  that  those  events  had  rather  a  political  effect.  (Re- 
newed laughter.)  Therefore  I  did  not  see  exactly  how  it 
was  possible  that  men  should  assemble  together  to  rejoice 
over  events  having  a  political  aspect  without  the  meeting 
and  the  rejoicing  having  a  political  aspect  also.  Well,  now, 
gentlemen,  I  haven't  come  here  with  any  design  that,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  it  shall  have  anything  but  a  political 
aspect.  ("Good"  and  applause.)  These  times  are  too 
serious  for  the  acceptance  of  any  suggestion  that  hard  names 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  23 

are  not  to  be  called  if  hard  names  are  deserved.  (Voices — 
"That  is  it!")  The  question  is  not  whether  the  meeting 
shall  have  a  political  influence,  but  whether  it  is  necessary 
to  the  salvation  of  the  country  that  it  shall  have  a  political 
influence.  (Applause.)  Well,  gentlemen,  I  observed  while 
the  person  who  last  occupied  the  platform  was  speaking  cer- 
tain indications,  which  I  thought  were  a  slight  deviation  from 
that  much  talked-of  right  of  free  speech.  (Laughter,  and  a 
voice — "  Hit  'em  again.")  Now,  then,  I  am  going  to  read 
a  resolution  adopted  at  Chicago.  I  am  going  to  make  two 
propositions  in  reference  to  it.  I  am  then  going  to  ask 
whether  this  assembly  assents  to  or  rejects  those  propositions. 
If  there  is  any  man  in  this  assembly  who  denies  or  doubts 
those  propositions,  if  I  have  the  consent  of  the  honored  chair- 
man of  this  meeting  to  ten  minutes  of  time  in  which  I  can 
engage  the  ear  of  the  assembly,  I  surrender  it  to  that  man, 
that  he  may  have  an  opportunity  upon  this  platform  to  refute, 
if  he  can,  the  propositions  which  I  lay  down.  (Applause.) 
Now  the  second  resolution  of  this  platform  is  in  these 
words — 

(At  this  point  there  was  considerable  disturbance  in  the 
rear  of  the  hall,  created  by  one  individual,  and  several  voices 
cried  out—"  Free  speech !  "     "  Out  with  him !  ") 

Mr.  Boutwell  continued:  He  will  be  more  useful  to  the 
country  if  he  remain  here.  If  he  goes  away  there  is  no 
chance  for  his  conversion  to  the  truth :  if  he  remain  here  he 
may  be  saved.  (Laughter.)  "  The  vilest  sinner  may  return, 
While  the  lamp  holds  out  to  burn."  (Renewed  laughter  and 
applause.)  I  hope  gentlemen  who  favor  free  speech  will  lis- 
ten attentively  to  this  resolution: 

"  Resolved,  That  this  convention  does  explicitly  declare 
as  the  sense  of  the  American  people,  that  after  four  years  of 
failure  to  restore  the  Union  by  the  experiment  of  war,  during 
which  under  pretence  of  military  necessity,  or  war  power 


24  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

higher  than  the  Constitution,  the  Constitution  has  been  disre- 
garded in  every  part  and  public  liberty  and  private  rights  alike 
trodden  down,  and  the  material  prosperity  of  the  country 
essentially  impaired,  justice,  humanity,  liberty  and  the  pub- 
lic welfare  demand  that  immediate  efforts  be  made  for  a  ces- 
sation of  hostilities  with  a  view  to  an  ultimate  convention 
of  all  the  States,  or  other  peaceable  means,  to  the  end  that  at 
the  earliest  practicable  moment  peace  may  be  restored  on  the 
basis  of  the  Federal  Union  of  the  States." 

(The  resolution  was  greeted  with  a  feeble  clapping  of 
hands,  a  slight  attempt  at  cheers  in  the  rear  of  the  hall,  and 
a  storm  of  hisses.     Mr.  Boutwell  continued :) 

If  there  are  any  gentlemen  here  w^ho  approve  this  resolu- 
tion, I  hope  they  will  have  the  opportunity  to  cheer.  (About 
half  a  dozen  persons  commenced  to  cheer,  but  abandoned  it 
on  hearing  their  own  voices,  when  a  voice  exclaiming  "  These 
are  the  Copperheads,"  caused  loud  laughter.  The  speaker 
proceeded : ) 

Now  then,  gentlemen,  the  tw'o  propositions  I  lay  down  are 
these,  and  if  any  one  of  those  gentlemen  who  indulged  in  the 
luxury  of  a  cheer  just  now  chooses  to  come  upon  this  plat- 
form. I  fulfill  my  pledge :  The  first  is  that  this  resolu- 
tion, so  far  as  known,  meets  the  approval  of  the  rebels  in 
arms  against  this  government.  (Voices — "  That's  so,"  and 
cheers.)  The  second  is  that  this  resolution  meets  the  ap- 
proval of  all  the  men  in  the  North  who  sympathize  w'ith  the 
cause  of  this  rebellion  and  desire  its  success.  (Repeated 
cheers  and  "  That's  it.")  Now,  then,  if  there  is  any  one  who 
■would  deny  the  truth  of  these  propositions,  let  him,  wMth  the 
leave  of  the  chair,  take  ten  minutes  upon  this  platform. 
(Some  confusion  ensued,  several  voices  shouting  "Make 
room  for  George  Lunt."  "  Where's  Lunt?  "  etc.,  etc.,  etc.  No 
one  appearing.  Mr.  Boutwell  continued:)  If  there  is  nobody 
to  refute  these  propositions,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  they 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  25 

meet  the  general  assent  of  this  vast  assembly  (cries  of 
"  Good  "  and  cheers) ;  and  if  so,  isn't  this  the  time,  when 
a  great  convention  professing  to  represent  a  portion  of  the 
American  people  in  time  of  war,  not  having  spoken  since  hos- 
tilities commenced,  frame  a  leading  resolution  so  as  to  meet 
the  assent  and  approval  of  the  enemies  of  the  Republic — isn't 
this  the  time,  when  such  things  are  done,  for  men  who  have 
a  faith  in  the  country  and  a  belief  in  its  right  to  exist, 
to  declare  the  reasons  for  that  belief?  (Voices — "Yes."} 
Now  I  propose  to  discuss  that  resolution  in  some  degree. 
First,  it  proposes  a  cessation  of  hostilities.  I  have  heard  the 
word  armistice  mentioned  to-night.  The  declaration  of  that 
resolution  is  not  for  an  armistice.  An  armistice,  according 
to  its  general  acceptation  and  use,  implies  a  suspension  of  hos- 
tilities upon  the  expectation  and  condition  that  they  are  to  be 
resumed.  Neither  in  this  resolution,  nor  in  the  whole  series  of 
resolutions  to  which  this  one  belongs,  is  there  an  intimation 
that  when  cessation  of  hostilities  has  been  effected  hostilities 
are  to  be  resumed ;  and  if  hostilities  are  not  to  be  resumed  then 
a  cessation  of  hostilities  is  an  abandonment  of  the  Govern- 
ment. It  is  treason.  (Voices — "  That's  so,"  and  loud  and 
continued  cheers.)  I  declare  here  that  the  proposition  for  a 
cessation  of  hostilities  is  moral  and  political  treason  (voices 
— "Good");  and,  further,  every  man  who  knowingly  and 
after  investigation,  and  upon  his  judgment  favors  a  cessation 
of  hostilities,  is  a  traitor.  (Loud  cheers.)  The  issue,  gen- 
tlemen, is  no  longer  upon  the  tented  field.  No  danger  there 
to  the  cause  of  the  Union.  The  soldiers  are  true  to  the  flag 
and  they  will  fight  on  and  march  on  until  the  last  rebel  has 
fallen  to  the  dust  or  laid  down  his  arms.  The  soldiers  are 
true,  but  the  cause  of  the  Union  is  in  peril  at  home  (voices — 
"That's  where  it  is"),  where  secret  organizations  are  mus- 
tering their  forces  and  gathering  in  material  of  war  for  which 
there  can  be  no  possible  use  except  to  revolutionize  this  coun- 


26  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

try  througli  the  fearful  experience  of  civil  war.  (A  voice — 
"  Shame  on  them.")  O  how  I  long  for  some  knowledge  of 
the  English  language  so  that  I  may  select  a  word  or  a  phrase 
which  shall  fully  express  the  enormity  of  this  treason! 
(Voices — "  Hang  them."     "  String  them  up.") 

The  rebels  of  the  South  have  some  cause.  They  believe 
in  tiie  institution  of  slavery. — they  have  been  educated  under 
its  influence.  Tiiey  thought  it  in  peril.  They  made  war 
with  some  pretence  on  their  part  for  a  reason  for  war,  but 
what  excuse,  what  palliation  is  there  for  those  men  in  the 
North,  who,  regardless  of  liberty,  of  justice,  and  of  human- 
ity, ally  themselves,  openly  some  and  secretly  others,  with  the 
enemies  of  the  Republic?  Spare,  spare,  your  anathemas,  gen- 
tlemen. Do  not  longer  employ  the  harsh  language  which  you 
can  command  in  denunciation  of  Southern  traitors.  They  of 
the  North  who  give  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemy  deserve  to 
monopolize  in  the  application  all  the  harsh  words  and  phrases 
of  the  English  language.  (Applause.)  Cessation  of  hos- 
tilities— what  follows?  Dissolution  of  the  Union  inevitably. 
Will  not  Jefferson  Davis  and  his  associates  understand  that 
when  we  'have  ceased  to  make  war,  when  our  armies  become 
demoralized,  public  sentiment  relaxed,  when  they  have  had 
opportunity  to  gather  up  the  materials  for  prosecuting  this 
contest,  that  we  cannot  renew  the  contest  with  any  reasonable 
hope  of  success.  Therefore,  if  you  abandon  this  contest  now, 
it  is  separation — that  is  what  is  meant,  and  nothing  else  can 
follow.  But  suppose  that  what  some  gentlemen  desire  could 
be  accomplished, — a  reconstruction  of  the  Union  by  diplo- 
matic relations  inaugurated  between  this  Czovernment  and 
Jefferson  Davis' — suppose  the  South  should  return — what 
follows?  When  you  have  permitted  Jefferson  Davis  and  his 
associates  to  come  back  and  take  their  places  in  the  govern- 
ment of  this  country,  do  you  not  see  that  with  the  help  of  a 
small  number  of  representatives  from  the  North  whose  serv- 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  27 

ices  they  are  sure  to  command,  they  will  assume  the  war 
debt  of  the  South.  When  you  have  assumed  that  debt,  and 
taken  the  obHgation  to  pay  it,  these  men  of  the  South  will 
treat  the  obligation  lightly,  and  upon  the  first  pretext  will 
renew  secession  and  will  march  straight  out  of  the  Union, 
and  you,  with  your  embarrassed  finances,  will  find  yourselves 
unable  to  institute  military  proceedings  for  their  subjuga- 
tion. Therefore  I  say  that  by  the  reconstruction  some  men 
desire  you  render  secession  certain,  bankruptcy  throughout 
the  North  certain.  The  repudiation  of  the  Public  Debt  is  not  a 
matter  of  expectation  or  fear,  it  is  a  matter  of  certainty,  if  you 
assent  to  any  reconstruction  of  this  Union  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  Jefferson  Davis  and  his  associates.  You  must 
either  drive  them  into  exile  or  exterminate  them.  Break 
down  the  military  power  of  the  people,  and  exterminate  or 
exile  their  leaders,  and  bring  up  men  at  the  South  in  favor 
of  the  Union,  who  are  opposed  to  the  assumption  of  the 
war  debt  of  the  South — there  is  no  other  way  of  security  to 
yourselves.  (Cheers.)  Now,  then,  are  you  prepared  to  cease 
hostilities  with  the  expectation  of  negotiations  with  Jefferson 
Davis  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  or  for  its  restoration  ? 
(Voices — "  No!  ")  Either  course  is  alike  fatal  to  you,  for 
the  war  must  go  on  until  peace  is  conquered.  (Loud  cheers 
and  voices — "That's  so.")  On  the  one  side  they  offer  you 
as  negotiators  Franklin  Pierce,  perhaps,  and  A.  H.  Stevens; 
on  the  other,  possibly  one  of  the  Seymours,  either  of  Con- 
necticut or  New  York,  Wise  of  Virginia,  Vallandigham  of 
Ohio,  and  Soule  of  Louisiana.  The  only  negotiators,  gentle- 
men, to  be  trusted  so  long  as  the  war  continues  or  there  is  a 
rebel  in  arms — the  only  negotiators  are  Grant  upon  one  line 
and  Sherman  upon  the  other.     (Tremendous  cheers.) 

A  Voice— "You  have  left  out  Mr.  Harris  of  Mary- 
land." 

Mr.  Boutwell — "  According  to  the  reports,  etc.,  we  have 


28  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

had  from  Chicago,  he  conducts  negotiations  upon  his  own 
account." 

Voice — "  How  are  you,  Mr.  Harris?  " 

Mr.  Boutwell — What  does  the  cessation  of  hostihties  mean? 
It  means  that  the  blockade  is  to  be  removed,  and  the  South 
to  be  allowed  to  furnish  itself  with  materials  and  muni- 
tions of  war.  What  does  that  mean  on  the  land?  What 
does  it  mean  on  the  sea?  That  you  are  to  furl  your  flag  at 
Fortress  Monroe  on  the  Petersburg  line;  that  you  are  to  re- 
move your  gunboats  from  the  Mississippi  River;  that  you  are 
to  abandon  Fort  Jackson  and  Fort  St.  Philip  at  its  mouth, 
that  you  are  to  undo  the  work  which  the  gallant  Farragut 
has  already  done  in  Mobile  Bay,  and  so  along  the  coast  and 
upon  the  line  from  the  Atlantic  beyond  the  Mississippi  River. 
You.  people  of  the  North,  who  have  been  victorious  upon  the 
whole  through  three  years  of  war — you  are  to  disgrace  your 
ancestry  —  you  are  to  render  yourselves  infamous  in  all  fu- 
ture time,  by  furling  your  flag  and  submitting  anew  to  rebel 
authority  upon  this  continent.  Are  you  prepared  for  it? 
(Voices — "No!"  "never!")  I  ask  these  men  here,  who 
cheered  the  resolution  adopted  at  Chicago,  whether  they,  men 
of  Massachusetts,  and  in  Faneuil  Hall,  will  say,  one  of  them, 
with  his  face  to  the  patriots  of  the  Revolution — will  say  that 
he  asks  for  peace  through  any  craven  spirit  that  is  in  him  ?  Is 
there  a  man  among  them  all,  from  whatsoever  quarter  of  this 
city,  renowned  in  history — is  there  a  man  of  them  all  who 
will  stand  here  and  say  he  is  for  a  cessation  of  hostilities?  If 
so,  let  him  speak,  and  let  him,  if  he  dare,  come  upon  this  plat- 
form and  face  his  patriotic  fellow-citizens.  (A  call  was  made 
for  cheers  for  McClellan  in  the  rear  of  the  hall,  but  nobody 
seemed  disposed  to  respond.  The  speaker  continued. )  lam 
willing  a  cheer  should  be  given  for  any  man  who  has  been  in 
the  servnce  of  the  country,  however  little  he  may  have  done. 
Is  there  any  man  in  Faneuil  Hall  for  peace?     (Voices — 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  29 

*'  No!  ")  I  intended,  so  far  as  was  in  my  power,  to  give  to 
this  meeting  a  political  aspect  (voices — "  Good!  ")  in  favor 
of  the  country  and  against  traitors.  (Cheers.)  If  there  are 
no  peace  men  in  this  assembly,  then  that  object,  as  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  is  accomplished.      (Prolonged  cheering.) 

MR.    CHASE   AND   THE   CHIEF   JUSTICESHIP 

Upon  the  death  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  the  general  public 
favored  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Chase  as  his  successor.  In 
that  view  I  concurred,  but  I  had  heard  Mr.  Chase  make  so 
many  unjust  criticisms  upon  Mr.  Lincoln  that  I  resolved  to 
say  nothing.  I  was  willing  to  have  Mr.  Chase  appointed,  but 
I  was  not  willing  to  ask  the  President  to  confer  so  great  a 
place  upon  a  man  who  had  been  so  unjust  to  him.  When  the 
nomination  had  been  made,  I  said  to  Mr.  Lincoln  that  I  was 
very  glad  that  he  had  decided  to  appoint  Mr.  Chase.  He  then 
said :  "  There  are  three  reasons  in  favor  of  his  appointment, 
and  one  very  strong  reason  against  it.  First,  he  occupies  the 
largest  place  in  the  public  mind  in  connection  with  the  office, 
then  we  wish  for  a  Chief  Justice  who  will  sustain  what  has 
been  done  in  regard  to  emancipation  and  the  legal  tenders. 
We  cannot  ask  a  man  what  he  will  do,  and  if  we  should,  and 
he  should  answer  us,  we  should  despise  him  for  it.  There- 
fore we  must  take  a  man  whose  opinions  are  known.  But 
there  is  one  very  strong  reason  against  his  appointment.  He 
is  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  and  if  he  does  not  give  up 
that  idea  it  will  be  very  bad  for  him  and  very  bad  for  me." 
At  that  time  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  re-elected  to  the  Presi- 
dency. 

Mr.  Chase  continued  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency. 
He  abandoned  the  Republican  Party  in  1868  and  as  Chief 
Justice  he  abandoned  his  own  policy  or  the  policy  that  he  had 
adopted  in  regard  to  the  legal  tender  currency. 

It  was  said  that  Mr.  Sumner,  who  was  very  earnest  for 


30  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Chase's  appointment,  gave  strong  pledges  to  Mr.  Lincoln  that 
Mr.  Chase  would  abandon  his  ambition  for  the  Presidency. 

RIGHTS   OF   STATES 

In  1864  I  introduced  a  series  of  resolutions  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  in  the  form  of  a  Declaration  of  Opinion 
in  regard  to  the  legal  status  of  the  States  in  rebellion.  At 
that  time  the  country  and  Congress  had  no  doubt  of  our  abil- 
ity to  crush  the  rebellion,  and  the  public  mind  was  occupied 
with  various  theories  of  reconstruction. 

The  resolutions  had  been  already  accepted  by  the  National 
Union  League.  I  prepared  them  at  the  instance  of  Gov- 
ernor Claflin  and  their  adoption  by  the  League  had  made  the 
policy  known  to  a  large  body  of  active  Republicans.  I  did 
not  seek  to  secure  their  adoption  by  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives.    The  resolutions  were  in  this  form : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Rebellious  States  be 
instructed  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  expediency  of  rec- 
ommending to  this  House  the  adoption  of  the  following 

Declaration  of  Opinions: 

"  In  view  of  the  present  condition  of  the  country,  and  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  recent  signal  successes  of  the  national 
arms  promising  a  speedy  overthrow  of  the  rebellion,  this 
House  makes  the  following  declaration  of  opinions  concern- 
ing the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  and  parts  of  States 
engaged  in  the  rebellion,  and  embraced  in  the  proclamation 
of  emancipation  issued  by  the  President  on  the  first  day  of 
January,  A.  D.  1863:  and  also  concerning  the  relations  now 
subsisting  between  the  people  of  such  States  and  parts  of 
States  on  the  one  side,  and  the  American  Union  on  the  other. 

"It  is  therefore  declared  (as  the  opinion  of  the  House  of 
Representatives),  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  the  cause 
of  the  present  rebellion,  and  that  the  destruction  of  slavery  in 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  31 

the  rebellious  States  is  an  efficient  means  of  weakening  the 
power  of  the  rebels;  that  the  President's  proclamation 
whereby  all  persons  heretofore  held  as  slaves  in  such  States 
and  parts  of  States  have  been  declared  free,  has  had  the  effect 
to  increase  the  power  of  the  Union,  and  to  diminish  the  power 
of  its  enemies;  that  the  freedom  of  such  persons  was  desirable 
and  just  in  itself,  and  an  efficient  means  by  which  the  Gov- 
ernment was  to  be  maintained,  and  its  authority  re-estab- 
lished in  all  the  territory  and  over  all  the  people  within  the 
legal  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States;  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Government  and  of  loyal  men  everywhere  to  do  what  may 
be  practicable  for  the  enforcement  of  the  proclamation,  in 
order  to  secure  in  fact,  as  well  as  by  the  forms  of  law,  the 
extinction  of  slavery  in  such  States  and  parts  of  States;  and, 
finally,  that  it  is  the  paramount  duty  of  the  Government  and 
of  all  loyal  men  to  labor  for  the  restoration  of  the  American 
Union  upon  the  basis  of  freedom. 

"And  this  House  does  further  declare,  That  a  State  can 
exist  or  cease  to  exist  only  by  the  will  of  the  people  within 
its  limits,  and  that  it  cannot  be  created  or  destroyed  by  the 
external  force  or  opinion  of  other  States,  or  even  by  the  judg- 
ment or  action  of  the  nation  itself;  that  a  State,  when  created 
by  the  will  of  its  people,  can  become  a  member  of  the  Amer- 
ican Union  only  by  its  own  organized  action  and  the  concur- 
rent action  of  the  existing  National  Government,  that,  when 
a  State  has  been  admitted  to  the  Union,  no  vote,  reso- 
lution, ordinance,  or  proceeding  on  its  part,  however  formal 
in  character  or  vigorously  sustained,  can  deprive  the  National 
Government  of  the  legal  jurisdiction  and  sovereignty  over 
the  territory  and  people  of  such  State  which  existed  previous 
to  the  act  of  admission,  or  which  were  acquired  thereby;  that 
the  effect  of  the  so-called  acts,  resolutions  and  ordinances  of 
secession  adopted  by  the  eleven  States  engaged  in  the  present 
rebellion  is,  and  can  only  be,  to  destroy  those  political  organ- 


32  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

izations  as  States,  while  the  legal  and  constitutional  jurisdic- 
tion and  authority  of  the  National  Government  over  the  peo- 
ple and  territory  remain  unimpaired;  that  these  several  com- 
munities can  be  organized  into  States  only  by  the  will  of  the 
loyal  people,  expressed  freely  and  in  the  absence  of  all  coer- 
cion :  that  States  so  organized  can  become  States  of  the  Amer- 
ican Union  only  when  they  shall  have  applied  for  admission, 
and  their  admission  shall  have  been  authorized  by  the  existing 
National  Government ;  that,  when  a  people  have  organized  a 
State  upon  the  basis  of  allegiance  to  the  Union  and  applied 
for  admission,  the  character  of  the  institutions  of  such  pro- 
posed State  may  constitute  a  sufficient  justification  for  grant- 
ing or  rejecting  such  application;  and,  inasmuch  as  expe- 
rience has  shown  that  the  existence  of  human  slavery  is 
incompatible  with  a  republican  form  of  government,  in  the 
several  States  or  in  the  United  States,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  peace,  prosperity  and  unity  of  the  nation,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  people  and  of  all  men  in  authority,  to  resist  the  admis- 
sion of  slave  States  wherever  organized  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  National  Government." 

The  logical  consequence  of  these  positions  was  that  upon 
the  conquest  of  the  States  engaged  in  the  rebellion  the  Na- 
tional Government  could  govern  the  people  as  seemed  expe- 
dient and  readmit  them  into  the  Union  at  such  times  and  upon 
such  terms  as  the  Government  should  dictate.  They  antag- 
onized the  doctrine  then  accepted  by  many  Republicans 
"  Once  a  State  always  a  State  " — a  doctrine  that  would  have 
transferred  the  government  at  once  into  the  hands  of  the 
men  who  had  been  engaged  in  an  effort  to  destroy  it. 

Mr.  Sumner  was  wiser  in  this  respect.  His  theory  that 
the  rebellious  States  should  be  reduced  to  a  Territorial  con- 
dition was  in  harmony  with  the  views  that  were  embodied  in 
the  resolutions.  At  the  time,  however,  they  did  not  receive 
the  support  of  all  the  members  of  the  Republican  Party. 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  33 

Mr.  Stevens  maintained  the  doctrine  that  the  rebel  States 
were  conquered  States  and  wholly  subject  to  the  power  of 
the  conqueror.  In  his  view  their  previous  condition  as  States 
in  the  Union  had  no  value.  But  Mr.  Stevens  was  never 
troubled  by  the  absence  of  logic  or  argument.  In  the  case 
of  the  rebel  States  he  intended  to  assert  power  enough  to 
meet  the  exigency  and  he  was  free  of  all  fear  as  to  the  judg- 
ment of  posterity.  When  he  had  formed  a  purpose  he  looked 
only  to  the  end.  If  he  could  command  the  adequate  means 
he  left  all  questions  of  logic  and  ethics  to  other  minds  and  to 
future  times. 

Others  maintained  that  the  theory  that  the  States  were  in 
a  Territorial  condition  or  that  they  had  ceased  to  exist  as 
States,  was  an  admission  of  the  doctrine  of  secession.  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  his  last  public  address  cut  clear  of  all  theories  and 
resolved  the  situation  into  a  simple  statement  of  a  fact  to 
which  all  were  compelled  to  assent :  "  We  all  agree,  that 
the  seceded  States  co-called,  are  out  of  their  proper  practical 
relations  with  the  Union."  On  this  basis  Congress  finally 
acted,  but  during  the  process  and  progress  of  reconstruction 
the  military  authority  was  absolute,  and  local  and  individual 
powers  were  completely  subordinated  to  the  authority  of  the 
General  Government. 

COUNTING  THE  ELECTORAL  VOTES 

In  1865  and  in  1869,  questions  were  raised  when  the  elec- 
toral votes  were  counted,  that  gave  rise  to  debates  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  and  on  one  occasion  sub- 
sequently in  the  Senate.  In  the  House,  Francis  Thomas  of 
Maryland  and  Samuel  Shellabarger  of  Ohio  took  part.  Both 
were  able  men.  Thomas  had  the  qualities  of  an  orator  but 
he  spoke  so  infrequently  that  his  power  was  not  generally 
appreciated.  On  that  occasion  he  spoke  exceedingly  well, 
but  the  attendance  was  small,  an  evening  session  having  been 


34  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

assigned  for  debate  upon  that  subject.  Mr.  Shellabarger  was 
logical  and  effective  but  he  was  destitute  of  imagination 
utterly.  At  the  bar  since  his  retirement  from  politics  he  has 
enjoyed  a  large  practice,  but,  unfortunately,  as  it  appears  to 
me.  he  has  preserved  the  style  of  speaking  which  he  acquired 
upon  the  stump  and  in  Congress.  A  skillful  speaker  must 
adapt  himself  to  the  circumstances  and  to  his  audience.  A 
stump  speech,  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  a 
speech  in  the  Senate,  an  argument  to  a  court,  an  argument  to  a 
jury,  should  each  be  framed  on  a  model  of  its  own.  Neither 
style  will  answer  for  any  other.  The  degree  of  variance  may 
not  be  considerable  and  with  a  well  disciplined  person  the 
change  may  not  be  apparent.  Mr.  Webster  adapted  himself  to 
every  audience,  but  the  changes  were  slight.  Yet  there  were 
changes.  He  was  not  over  solemn  in  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
he  was  never  boisterous  when  he  addressed  the  multitude. 

As  far  as  I  recollect  my  positions  and  arguments  in  the 
debates  upon  the  counting  of  the  electoral  votes,  I  now  dis- 
card all  that  I  then  said.  My  present  conclusion  is  that  upon 
a  reasonable  construction  of  the  Constitution  there  is  no 
occasion  for  legislation  or  for  an  amendment  to  the  funda- 
mental law.  The  Vice-President  or  the  President  of  the 
Senate  is  the  president  of  the  convention.  He  carries  into 
the  chair  the  ordinary  powers  of  a  presiding  officer.  He 
rules  upon  all  questions  that  arise.  He  may  and  should  rule 
upon  the  various  certificates  that  are  sent  up  by  the  several 
States.  If,  in  any  case,  his  ruling  is  objected  to,  the  two 
Houses  separate,  and  each  House  votes  upon  the  question : — 
"  Shall  the  ruling  of  the  Chair  stand,  etc."  If  the  Houses 
divide,  the  ruling  is  sustained.  The  president  and  one  House 
are  a  majority.  The  decision  is  in  accordance  with  our  sys- 
tem of  government.  The  suggestion  that  the  president  or 
that  the  Houses  may  act  under  the  influence  of  personal 
or  political  prejudice,  may,  with  equal  force,  be  urged  against 


INCIDENTS  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR  35 

any  scheme  that  can  be  devised.  The  counting  of  the  elec- 
toral votes  must  be  left  in  the  hands  of  men,  and  the  Con- 
stitution has  given  us  all  the  security  that  can  be  had  that  the 
decisions  will  be  honestly  made.  The  president  of  the  con- 
vention and  the  members  of  the  Houses  are  bound  by  oath 
as  solemnly  as  are  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country.  A 
judge  is  only  a  man,  and  he  is  subject  to  like  infirmities  with 
other  men.  It  is  a  wise  feature  of  our  system  that  the  courts 
have  no  voice  in  the  political  department  of  the  Government. 
The  presidential  office  should  never  be  in  the  control  of  the 
judicial  branch  of  the  Government. 


XXX 

THE    AMENDMENTS    TO    THE    CONSTITU- 
TION 

I  HAD  no  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  Thirteenth  Amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution,  nor  any  part  in  its  passage 
through  the  House  other  than  to  give  my  vote  in  its 
favor.  The  Amendment  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Thirty- 
eighth  Congress  at  its  last  session  and  by  the  aid  of  Demo- 
crats. The  elections  of  1864  had  resulted  in  a  two-thirds  ma- 
jority and  it  was  therefore  certain  that  the  resolution  would 
be  agreed  to  by  the  next  House.  Hence  there  was  less  in- 
ducement for  the  Democrats  to  resist  its  passage  by  the 
Thirty-eighth  Congress.  A  small  number  of  Democrats  fa- 
vored the  measure.  English  of  Connecticut  and  Ganson  of 
New  York  were  of  the  number.  There  were  others  also 
whose  names  I  do  not  recall.  At  the  time  of  the  contest  a 
rumor  was  abroad  that  James  M.  Ashley,  of  Ohio,  was  en- 
gaged in  making  arrangements  with  certain  Democrats  to 
absent  themselves  from  the  House  when  the  vote  was  taken. 
Several  were  absent — some  were  reported  ill  in  health.  Mr. 
Ashley  was  deeply  interested  in  the  passage  of  the  resolution 
and  it  was  believed  that  he  made  pledges  which  no  one  but  the 
President  could  keep.  Such  was  the  exigency  for  the  passage 
of  the  resolution  that  the  means  were  not  subjected  to  any 
rigid  rule  of  ethics. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  had  its  origin  in  a  joint  com- 
mittee of  fifteen  of  which  Mr.  Fessenden  of  Maine  was  chair- 
man.    A  record  of  its  proceedings  was  kept  which  was  printed 

36 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION    37 

recently  by  order  of  the  Senate.  From  that  report  it  appears 
that  I  proposed  an  amendment  for  conferring  the  right  to 
vote  upon  the  freedmen  of  the  State  of  Tennessee.  As  far 
as  I  know  that  was  the  first  time  the  proposition  was  made 
in  connection  with  the  proceedings  of  Congress.  The  com- 
mittee did  not  concur  in  the  proposition.  Indeed  the  time 
had  not  come  for  decisive  action  in  that  direction.  The  mo- 
tion was  made  in  the  committee  the  19th  day  of  February, 
1866,  when  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  into  the 
Union  was  under  consideration.  The  motion  was  in  these 
words :  "  Said  State  shall  make  no  distinction  in  the  exer- 
cise of  the  elective  franchise  on  account  of  race  or  color." 
The  motion  was  lost  by  the  following  vote : 

Yeas:     Howard,  Stevens,  Washburne,  Morrill,  Boutwell. 

Nays:  Harris,  Williams,  Grider,  Bingham,  Conkling, 
Rogers. 

Absent :    Fessenden,  Grimes,  Johnson,  Blow. 

The  1 6th  day  of  April  Senator  Stuart,  of  Nevada,  came 
before  the  committee  in  support  of  a  similar  proposition  that 
he  had  introduced  in  the  Senate  April  7. 

In  January,  1866,  a  bill  was  under  discussion  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  for  the  establishment  of  a  government  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  Mr.  Hale  of  New  York  moved 
amendments  by  which  the  right  of  suffrage  by  negroes  would 
be  limited  to  those  who  could  read  and  write,  to  those  who 
had  performed  service  in  the  army  or  navy  or  who  possessed 
property  qualifications.  The  amendment  was  defeated.  My 
views  were  thus  stated  in  one  of  the  very  small  number  of 
my  speeches  that  have  had  immediate  influence  upon  an  audi- 
ence or  an  assembly : 

"  I  am  opposed  to  the  instructions  moved  by  the  gentle- 
man from  New  York,  because  I  see  in  them  no  advantage 
to  anybody,  and  I  apprehend  from  their  adoption  much  evil 


38  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

to  the  country.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that,  when  we 
emancipated  the  black  people  we  not  only  relieved  ourselves 
from  the  institution  of  slavery,  we  not  only  conferred  upon 
them  freedom,  but  we  did  more;  we  recognized  their  man- 
hood, which,  by  the  old  Constitution  and  the  general  policy 
and  usage  of  the  country,  had  been,  from  the  organization  of 
the  Government  until  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  denied 
to  all  of  the  enslaved  colored  people.  As  a  consequence  of 
the  recognition  of  their  manhood,  certain  results  follow,  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Government;  and  they 
who  believe  in  this  Government  are,  by  necessity,  forced  to 
accept  those  results  as  a  consequence  of  the  policy  of  emanci- 
pation which  they  have  inaugurated,  and  for  which  they  are 
responsible. 

"  But  to  say  now,  having  given  freedom  to  the  blacks, 
that  they  shall  not  enjoy  the  essential  rights  and  privileges  of 
men,  is  to  abandon  the  principle  of  the  Proclamation  of 
Emancipation,  and  tacitly  to  admit  that  the  whole  emancipa- 
tion policy  is  erroneous. 

*  *  *  "  What  are  the  qualifications  suggested?  They 
are  three.  First  and  most  attractive,  service  in  the  army  or 
navy  of  the  United  States.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  say,  if 
I  discuss,  as  I  hope  to  discuss,  the  nature  and  origin  of  the 
right  of  voting,  that  there  is  not  the  least  possible  connec- 
tion between  service  in  the  army  and  navy  and  the  exercise 
of  the  elective  franchise, — none  whatever.  These  men  have 
performed  service,  and  I  am  for  dealing  justly  with  them 
because  they  have  performed  service.  But  I  am  more  anx- 
ious to  deal  justly  by  them  because  they  are  men.  And 
when  it  is  remembered,  that,  for  months  and  almost  for 
years  after  the  opening  of  the  rebellion,  we  refused  to  ac- 
cept the  services  of  colored  persons  in  the  armies  of  the 
country,  it  is  with  ill  grace  that  we  now  decline  to  allow  the 
vote  of  any  man  because  he  has  not  performed  that  service. 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION   39 

"  The  second  is  the  property  quahfication.  I  hope  it  is  not 
necessary  in  this  day  and  this  hour  of  the  RepubHc  to  argue 
anywhere  that  a  property  quahfication  is  not  only  unjust 
in  itself,  but  that  it  is  odious  to  the  people  of  the  country 
to  a  degree  which  cannot  be  expressed.  Everywhere,  I  be- 
lieve, for  half  a  century,  it  has  been  repudiated  by  the  peo- 
ple. Does  anybody  contemplate  such  a  qualification  to  the 
elective  franchise,  in  the  case  of  black  people  or  white? 

"  And,  next,  reading  and  writing,  or  reading  as  a  qualifi- 
cation, is  demanded;  and  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  example 
of  Massachusetts.  I  wish  gentlemen  who  now  appeal  to 
Massachusetts  would  often  appeal  to  her  in  other  matters 
where  I  can  more  conscientiously  approve  her  policy.  But 
it  is  a  different  proposition  in  Massachusetts  as  a  practical 
measure. 

"  When,  ten  years  ago,  this  qualification  was  imposed  upon 
the  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  it  excluded  no  person  who 
was  then  a  voter.  For  two  centuries,  we  have  had  in  Massa- 
chusetts a  system  of  public  instruction,  open  to  the  children 
of  the  whole  people  without  money  and  without  price.  There- 
fore all  the  people  there  had  had  opportunities  for  education. 
Why  should  the  example  of  such  a  State  be  quoted  to  justify 
refusing  suffrage  to  men  who  have  been  denied  the  privilege 
of  education,  and  whom  it  has  been  a  crime  to  teach? 

*  *  *  "  The  negro  has  everywhere  the  same  right  to 
vote  as  the  white  man,  and  I  maintain  still  further,  that, 
when  you  proceed  one  step  from  this  line,  you  admit  that 
your  government  is  a  failure.  What  is  the  essential  quality 
of  monarchical  and  aristocratic  governments?  Simply  that 
by  conventionalities  by  arrangements  of  conventions,  some 
persons  have  been  deprived  of  the  right  of  voting.  We 
have  attempted  to  set  up  and  maintain  a  government  upon 
the  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  men,  the  universal  right  of 
all  men,  to  participate  in  the  government.     In  accordance 


40  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

with  that  theory,  we  must  accept  the  ballot  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  equality.  It  is  enjoyed  by  the  learned  and  the  un- 
learned, the  wise  and  the  ignorant,  the  virtuous  and  the 
vicious. 

"  The  great  experiment  is  going  on.  If.  before  the  war, 
any  man  in  this  country  was  disposed  to  undervalue  a  gov- 
ernment thus  conducted,  he  should  have  learned  by  this  time 
the  wisdom  and  the  strength  of  a  government  which  em- 
braces and  embodies  the  judgment  and  the  will  of  the  whole 
people.  If  the  negroes  of  the  South,  four  million  strong, 
had  been  endowed  with  the  elective  franchise,  and  had  united 
with  the  white  people  of  that  region  in  the  work  of  rebellion, 
your  armies  would  have  been  powerless  to  subdue  that  rebel- 
lion, and  you  would  to-day  have  seen  your  territory  limited 
by  the  Potomac  and  the  Ohio. 

*  *  *  "  We  are  to  ansAver  for  our  treatment  of  the 
colored  people  of  this  country;  and  it  will  prove  in  the 
end  impracticable  to  secure  to  men  of  color  civil  rights,  unless 
the  persons  who  claim  those  rights  are  fortified  by  the  politi- 
cal right  of  voting.  With  the  right  of  voting,  everything 
that  a  man  ought  to  have  or  enjoy  of  civil  rights  comes  to 
him.  Without  the  right  to  vote  he  is  secure  in  nothing.  I 
cannot  consent,  after  all  the  guards  and  safeguards  which 
may  be  prepared  for  the  defence  of  the  colored  men  in  the 
enjoyment  of  their  rights. — I  cannot  consent  that  they  shall 
be  deprived  of  the  right  to  protect  themselves.  One  hundred 
and  eighty-six  thousand  of  them  have  been  in  the  army  of  the 
United  States.  They  have  stood  in  the  places  of  our  sons  and 
brothers  and  friends.  ]Many  of  them  have  fallen  in  defence 
of  the  country.  They  have  earned  the  right  to  share  in  the 
government ;  and,  if  you  deny  them  the  elective  franchise,  I 
know  not  how  they  are  to  be  protected.  Otherwise  you  fur- 
nish the  protection  which  is  given  to  the  lamb  when  he  is 
commended  to  the  wolf." 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION    41 

"  There  is  an  ancient  history  that  a  sparrow  pursued  by 
a  hawk  took  refuge  in  the  chief  Assembly  of  Athens,  in  the 
bosom  of  a  member  of  that  illustrious  body,  and  that  the 
senator  in  anger  hurled  it  violently  from  him.  It  fell  to  the 
ground  dead;  and  such  was  the  horror  and  indignation  of 
that  ancient  but  not  Christianized  body, — men  living  in  the 
light  of  nature,  of  reason, — that  they  immediately  expelled 
the  brutal  Areopagite  from  his  seat,  and  from  the  association 
of  humane  legislators. 

"  What  will  be  said  of  us,  not  by  Christian,  but  by  heathen 
nations  even,  if,  after  accepting  the  blood  and  sacrifices  of 
these  men,  we  hurl  them  from  us,  and  allow  them  to  become 
the  victims  of  those  who  have  tyrannized  over  them  for  cen- 
turies? I  know  of  no  crime  that  exceeds  this;  I  know  of 
none  that  is  its  parallel ;  and,  if  this  country  is  true  to  itself, 
it  will  rise  in  the  majesty  of  its  strength,  and  maintain  a 
policy,  here  and  everywhere,  by  which  the  right  of  the  colored 
people  shall  be  secure  through  their  own  power, — in  peace, 
the  ballot ;  in  war,  the  bayonet. 

"  It  is  a  maxim  of  another  language,  which  we  may  well 
apply  to  ourselves,  that,  where  the  voting-register  ends,  the 
military  roster  of  rebellion  begins;  and,  if  you  leave  these 
four  million  people  to  the  care  and  cusody  of  the  men  who 
have  inaugurated  and  carried  on  this  rebellion,  then  you 
treasure  up,  for  untold  years,  the  elements  of  social  and  civil 
war,  which  must  not  only  desolate  and  paraylze  the  South, 
but  shake  this  government  to  its  very  foundation." 

It  was  impossible  in  1866  to  go  farther  than  the  provisions 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  That  amendment  was  pre- 
pared in  form  by  Senators  Conkling  and  Williams  and  my- 
self. We  were  a  select  committee  on  Tennessee.  The  prop- 
ositions were  not  ours,  but  we  gave  form  to  the  amendment. 
The  part  relating  to  "  privileges  and  immunities  "  came  from 


42  SIXFY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  Bingham  of  Ohio.  Its  euphony  and  indefiniteness  of 
meaning  were  a  charm  to  him.  \\  lien  the  measure  came  be- 
fore the  Senate  Mr.  Sumner  opposed  its  passage  and  alleged 
that  we  proposed  lo  barter  the  right  of  the  negroes  to  vote 
for  diminished  representation  on  the  part  of  the  old  slave 
States  in  the  House  and  in  the  electoral  colleges;  while  in 
truth  the  loss  of  representation  was  imposed  as  a  penalty 
upon  any  State  that  should  deprive  any  class  of  its  adult 
male  citizens  of  the  right  to  vote.  Upon  this  allegation  of 
Mr.  Sumner  the  resolution  was  defeated  in  the  Senate.  There 
were  then  in  that  body  a  number  of  Republicans  from  the 
old  slave  States  and  over  them  Mr.  Sumner  had  large  in- 
fluence. The  defeat  of  the  amendment  was  followed  by 
bitter  criticisms  by  the  Republican  press  and  by  Republicans. 
These  criticisms  afifected  Mr.  Sumner  deeply  and  he  then 
devoted  himself  to  the  preparation  of  an  amendment  which 
he  could  approve.  While  he  was  engaged  in  that  work  I 
called  upon  him  and  he  read  seventeen  drafts  of  a  proposition 
not  one  of  which  was  entirely  satisfactory  to  himself,  and 
not  one  of  which  would  have  been  accepted  by  Congress  or  the 
country.  The  difficulty  was  in  the  situation.  Upon  the  return 
of  the  seceded  States  their  representation  would  T^e  in- 
creased nearly  forty  votes  in  the  House  and  in  the  electoral 
colleges  while  the  voting  force  would  remain  in  the  white 
population.  The  injustice  of  such  a  condition  was  apparent, 
and  there  were  only  two  possible  remedies.  One  was  to 
extend  the  franchise  to  the  blacks.  The  country — the  loyal 
States — were  not  then  ready  for  the  measure.  The  alterna- 
tive was  to  cut  off  the  representation  from  States  that  denied 
the  elective  franchise  to  any  class  of  adult  male  citizens. 
Finally  Mr.  Sumner  was  compelled  to  accept  the  alternative. 
Some  change  of  phraseology  was  made,  and  Mr.  Sumner 
gave  a  reluctant  vote  for  the  resolution. 

Aside  from  the  debates  on  the  constitutional  amendments 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION   43 

there  were  serious  differences  among  Republicans  in  regard  to 
the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  the  negroes. 

Previous  to  the  year  1868  there  was  a  majority  of  Repub- 
licans who  would  have  imposed  a  qualification,  some  of 
service  in  the  army  or  navy,  some  of  property  and  some  of 
education.  It  was  with  great  difficulty  that  the  scheme  of 
limitation  was  resisted  in  regard  to  the  District  of  Columbia. 
As  to  the  Democrats  they  could  always  be  counted  upon  to 
aid  in  any  measure  which  tended  to  keep  the  negroes  in  a  sub- 
ordinate condition.  This  of  the  majority — there  was  always 
a  minority,  usually  a  small  one,  who  were  ready  to  aid  in  the 
elevation  of  the  negro  when  his  emancipation  had  been  ac- 
complished. I  do  not  recall  the  name  of  one  man  who 
favored  emancipation  as  a  policy  and  adhered  to  the  Demo- 
cratic Party.  When  a  man  reached  the  conclusion  that  the 
negroes  should  be  free,  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than  join 
the  Republican  Party.  At  the  time  of  the  admission  of  Ten- 
nessee, July,  1866,  there  were  only  twelve  men  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  who  insisted  upon  securing  to  the  negro 
the  right  to  vote.  A  larger  number  favored  the  scheme,  but 
they  yielded  to  the  claim  of  that  State  to  be  admitted  without 
conditions.  At  that  time  the  power  of  the  President  was  not 
impaired  seriously,  and  his  wishes  were  heeded  by  many. 
There  was  also  an  understanding  that  the  State  would  con- 
cede the  right  upon  terms  not  unreasonable. 

Next  to  the  restoration  of  the  Union  and  the  abolition  of 
slavery  the  recognition  of  universal  suffrage  is  the  most  im- 
portant result  of  the  war.  It  has  its  evils  but  they  are  inci- 
dental, and  their  influence  is  limited  to  times  and  places, 
while  the  advantages  are  universal  and  enduring.  Universal 
suffrage  is  security  for  universal  education.  It  is  security 
against  chronic  hostility  to  the  Government  and  security 
against  the  manifestation  of  a  revolutionary  spirit  among  the 
people.     They  realize  that  with  frequent  elections,  the  evils 


44  'SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  administration  may  be  corrected  speedily.  By  a  similar 
though  slower  process  the  fundamental  law  may  be  changed. 
Hence  it  is  that  in  this  country  until  recently  there  was  no 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  system  of  gov- 
ernment under  which  we  are  living.  The  existing  diversity 
of  opinion  will  soon  disappear.  If  suffrage  were  limited  there 
would  be  a  body  of  discontented  people  ready  to  seize  upon 
any  pretext  that  promised  a  change.  In  the  present  condition 
of  our  system  the  only  danger  is  due  to  the  forcible  or  fraudu- 
lent withholding  of  the  right  from  those  who  are  entitled  to 
enjoy  it.  This  condition  of  things  must  soon  end.  The 
safety  of  a  state  is  yet  further  secured  by  frequent  elections. 
The  project  to  extend  the  Presidential  term  is  full  of  danger. 
If  the  term  were  six  or  ten  years  the  presence  of  an  offensive 
or  dangerous  man  in  the  ofiBce  would  provoke  a  revolution, 
or  cause  disturbances  only  less  disastrous  to  business  and  to 
social  and  domestic  comfort.  In  the  little  republic  of  Hayti 
there  have  been  not  less  than  seventeen  revolutions  in  the 
hundred  years  of  its  existence  and  they  were  due  in  a  large 
degree  to  the  fact  that  the  Presidential  term  is  seven  years. 
The  various  propositions  submitted  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  for  securing  the  right  to  vote  to  all 
the  male  adult  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  re- 
ferred to  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  which  I  was  a  mem- 
ber. Among  them  was  one  submitted  by  myself.  In  the 
committee  they  were  referred  to  a  sub-committee  consisting 
of  myself,  Mr.  Churchill  of  New  York,  and  Mr.  Eldridge  of 
Wisconsin.  Mr.  Eldridge  as  a  Democrat  was  opposed  to  the 
measure,  and  he  took  no  interest  in  preparing  the  form  of  an 
amendment.  Churchill  and  myself  were  fellow-boarders  and 
we  prepared  and  agreed  to  an  amendment  in  substance  that 
which  was  adopted  finally  and  which  in  form  was  almost  the 
same.  When  I  reported  the  amendment  to  the  committee 
not  one  word  was  said  either  in  criticism  or  commendation, 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION   45 

nor  was  there  a  call  for  a  second  reading.  After  a  moment's 
delay  Mr.  Wilson,  the  chairman,  said : — "  If  there  is  no 
objection  Mr.  Boutwell  will  report  the  amendment  to  the 
House."  There  was  no  objection  and  at  the  earliest  oppor- 
tunity I  made  the  report  —  that  is,  I  reported  the  resolution 
for  amending  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Wilson  made  a  speech 
which  I  have  not  since  read,  but  which  made  an  impression 
upon  my  mind  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  measure,  or  at 
least  had  doubts  about  the  wisdom  of  urging  the  amendment 
upon  Congress  and  the  country. 

The  resolution  passed  the  House  as  it  was  reported  by  the 
committee.  When  it  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate  Mr.  Sum- 
ner, who  was  opposed  to  the  resolution,  assailed  it  with  an 
amendment  that  would  have  been  fatal  if  his  lead  had  been 
followed  by  the  two  Houses.  He  proposed  to  insert  after 
the  words  "  to  vote  "  the  words  "  or  hold  office."  At  that 
time  he  was  a  recognized  leader  upon  all  matters  relating  to 
the  negro  race,  and  his  standing  with  that  race  was  such  that 
the  Republican  senators  from  the  slave  States  were  obedient 
to  his  wishes.  His  amendment  was  adopted  by  the  Senate. 
In  presence  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Sumner  was  opposed  to  any 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  upon  the  subject  and  that  he 
proposed  to  rely  upon  a  statute,  it  is  difficult  to  explain  his 
conduct  upon  any  other  theory  than  that  he  intended  to  de- 
feat the  measure  either  in  Congress  or  in  the  States.  He  had 
claimed  when  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  pending  that  a 
joint  resolution  would  furnish  an  adequate  remedy  and  pro- 
tection. His  proposition  was  in  these  words :  "  There  shall 
be  no  oligarchy,  aristocracy,  caste  or  monopoly  invested  with 
peculiar  privileges  and  powers  and  there  shall  be  no  denial  of 
rights,  civil  or  political  on  account  of  color  or  race  anywhere 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  or  the  jurisdiction 
thereof :  but  all  persons  therein  shall  be  equal  before  the  law, 
whether  in  the  court  room  or  at  the  ballot-box.     And  this 


46  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

siatute  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  constitution  or  laws 
of  any  State  notwithstanding."  This  resolution  is  a  sad  im- 
peacliment  of  Mr.  Sumner's  quality  as  a  lawyer  and  it  is  an 
equally  sad  impeachment  of  his  sense  or  of  his  integrity  as  a 
man  that  he  was  willing  to  risk  the  rights  of  five  million 
persons  upon  a  statute  whose  language  was  rhetorical  and  in- 
definite, a  statute  which  might  be  repealed  and  which  was 
quite  certain  to  be  pronounced  unconstitutional  by  the  Su- 
preme Court. 

Upon  the  return  of  the  resolution  and  amendment  to  the 
House,  my  own  position  was  an  embarrassing  one.  I  was 
counted  as  a  radical  and  in  favor  of  securing  to  the  negro  race 
every  right  to  which  the  white  race  was  entitled.  My  opposi- 
tion to  the  Senate  amendment  seemed  to  place  me  in  a  light 
inconsistent  with  my  former  professions.  However,  I  met 
the  difficulty  by  an  argument  in  which  I  maintained  that  the 
right  to  vote  carried  w'ith  it  the  right  to  hold  office.  That  in 
the  United  States  there  were  only  a  few  exceptions,  and  those 
were  exceptions  under  the  Constitution. 

Finally,  the  House,  by  a  reduced  vote  refused  to  concur 
with  the  amendment  of  the  Senate.  It  was  at  this  crisis  that 
Wendell  Phillips  wrote  an  article  in  the  Anti-Slavery  Stand- 
ard over  his  own  name  in  which  he  said  in  substance  and  in 
words,  that  the  House  proposition  was  adequate  and  that  it 
ought  to  be  accepted  by  the  Senate.  His  name  and  opinion 
settled  the  controversy.  The  Southern  Republicans  deserted 
Mr.  Sumner  feeling  that  the  opinion  of  Phillips  was  a  suffi- 
cient shield.  A  slight  change  of  phraseology  was  made  and 
the  proposition  of  the  House  became  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

I  wrote  a  letter  of  acknowledgment  to  Mr.  Phillips  in  the 
opinion  that  he  had  saved  the  amendment.  At  that  time  the 
prejudice  against  negroes  for  office  was  very  strong  in  Ohio, 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION   47 

Indiana,  Illinois  and  in  varying  degrees  the  prejudice  ex- 
tended over  the  whole  North. 

The  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  vote  has  not  been  fully  se- 
cured to  the  negro  race,  but  no  one  has  appeared  to  deny  his 
right  to  hold  office.  Indeed,  the  Democratic  Party  as  well  as 
the  Republican  Party  has  placed  him  in  office,  both  by  election 
and  appointment.  Thus  has  experience  shown  the  folly  of 
Mr.  Sumner's  amendment. 

That  Mr.  Sumner  should  have  been  willing  to  risk  the 
rights  of  the  whole  negro  race  upon  a  statute  whose  con- 
stitutionality would  have  been  questioned  upon  good  ground, 
and  which  might  have  been  repealed,  is  a  marvel  which  no  one 
not  acquainted  with  Mr.  Sumner  can  comprehend.  First  of 
all,  though  he  was  learned,  he  was  not  a  lawyer.  He  was 
unpractical  in  the  affairs  of  government  to  a  degree  that  is 
incomprehensible  even  to  those  who  knew  him.  He  was  in 
the  Senate  twenty-three  years  and  the  only  mark  that  he  left 
upon  the  statutes  is  an  amendment  to  the  law  relating  to 
naturalization  by  which  Mongolians  are  excluded  from  citi- 
zenship. The  object  of  his  amendment  was  to  save  negroes 
from  the  exclusive  features  of  the  statute  which  was  designed 
to  apply  only  to  the  Chinese.  His  amendment  made  plain 
what  the  committee  had  designed  to  secure.  He  was  a  great 
figure  in  the  war  against  slavery  and  as  a  great  figure  in  that 
war  he  should  ever  remain. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  saved  the  country  from  a  series 
of  calamities  that  might  have  been  more  disastrous  even  than 
the  Civil  War.  The  South  might,  under  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  grant  to  the  negroes  the  right  to  vote  but  upon 
conditions  wholly  impracticable  and  thus  have  secured  their 
full  representation  in  Congress  at  the  same  time  that  the 
voting  power  was  retained  in  the  hands  of  the  white  race.  Or 
they  might  have  denied  to  the  negro  race  the  right  to  vote 
and  submitted  to  a  loss  of  representation.     Such  a  policy 


48  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

would  have  given  the  whole  country  over  to  contention  and 
possibly  in  the  end,  to  civil  war.  The  discontented  and  op- 
pressed negroes,  increasing  in  numbers  and  wealth,  would 
have  demanded  their  rights  ultimately,  even  by  the  threat  of 
force,  or  by  the  use  of  force  they  would  have  secured  their 
rights.  In  the  North  there  would  have  been  a  large  body  of 
the  people,  only  less  than  the  whole  body,  who  would  have 
sympathized  with  the  negroes  and  who,  in  an  exigency  would 
have  rendered  them  material  aid.  The  Dorr  War  in  Rhode 
Island  and  the  struggles  in  Kansas,  are  instances  of  the  danger 
of  attempting  to  found  society  or  to  maintain  social  order  upon 
an  unjust  or  an  unequal  system  for  the  distribution  of  political 
power.  It  is  true  that  at  this  time  (1901)  the  operation  of 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment  has  been  defeated  and  consequently 
the  governments  of  States  and  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  have  become  usurpations,  in  that  they  have  been  in  the 
hands  of  a  minority  of  men.  Nevertheless  the  influence  of 
the  amendment  is  felt  by  all,  and  the  time  is  not  distant  when 
it  will  be  accepted  by  all.  Thus  our  Government  will  be 
made  to  rest  upon  the  wisest  and  safest  foundation  yet  de- 
vised by  man :  The  Equality  of  Men  in  the  States,  and  the 
Equality  of  States  in  the  Union. 

Mr.  Sumner  opposed  the  amendment  and  he  declined  to 
vote  upon  the  passage  of  the  resolution.  Wendell  Phillips 
saved  it  in  the  Senate.  General  Grant,  more  than  anyone  else 
secured  its  ratification  by  the  people.  I  append  a  copy  of  my 
letter  to  Mr.  Phillips : 

Washington,  March  13,  1870. 
My  dear  Sir  : — 

This  letter  w^ill  recall  to  your  mind  the  circumstance  that 
when  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  suspended  between  the 
two  houses  you  published  an  editorial  in  the  Standard  in  favor 
of  the  House  proposition.  Can  you  send  me  that  article? 
It  may  not  be  known  to  you  that   that  article  saved  the 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION   49 

amendment.  A  little  of  the  secret  history  was  this.  Vari- 
ous propositions  were  offered  in  the  House — among  them 
one  of  my  own — and  all  were  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee. 

In  the  Judiciary  Committee,  upon  my  motion  the  various 
resolutions  for  amending  the  Constitution  in  that  particular 
were  referred  to  a  sub-committee  consisting  of  myself, 
Churchill  of  New  York  and  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin. 
Churchill  and  myself  were  living  at  the  same  house  and  con- 
ferred together  several  times.  Eldridge  took  no  interest  in 
the  matter  and  never  joined  us — perhaps  was  not  invited. 
After  an  examination  of  all  the  plans  I  wrote  that  proposed 
amendment  which  was  passed  by  the  House  and  is  in  sub- 
stance and  almost  in  language  the  amendment  as  adopted. 

With  the  concurrence  of  Mr.  Churchill  I  reported  it  to 
the  committee  and  without  one  word  of  criticism  and  as 
far  as  I  could  judge  without  any  particular  consideration 
I  was  directed  to  report  it  to  the  House.  In  the  House  it 
encountered  considerable  opposition  and  Mr.  Wilson,  Chair- 
man of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  made  a  speech  which  was 
a  great  surprise  to  me,  though  directed  chiefly  to  the  bill 
which  I  had  also  reported  by  direction  of  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee giving  at  once  'the  right  of  suffrage  to  negroes  in  all 
national  elections  and  for  members  of  the  Legislature.  This 
I  thought  necessary  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  amendment 
through  the  State  Legislatures.  However,  the  resolution 
was  finally  passed  by  the  House.  In  the  Senate  it  met  with 
great  opposition  because  it  omitted  to  secure  in  terms  the 
right  to  hold  office.  This  point  had  been  raised  in  the 
House  where  I  had  successfully  met  the  proposition  by  the 
statement  and  an  argument  in  support  of  the  statement  that 
the  right  to  vote  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  in  law  carries  with 
it  the  right  to  hold  office.  In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Sumner,  sup- 
ported by  all  the  Southern  Republicans  and  a  part  of  the 


50  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Northern  Republicans  succeeded  in  substituting  a  new  reso- 
lution securing  in  terms  the  right  to  hold  oflke.  Upon  the 
return  of  the  Resolution  to  the  House  I  was  obliged  to  take 
what  appeared  a  conservative  position  and  resist  the  proposi- 
tion to  concur  with  the  Senate  upon  the  ground  that  the 
change  was  unnecessary  and  that  its  adoption  threatened 
the  loss  of  the  measure  in  doubtful  States  as  Ohio,  Indiana, 
West  Virginia  and  others.  The  House  adhered  to  its  posi- 
tion, yet  with  such  weakness  of  purpose  on  the  part  of  many 
who  sustained  me,  as  indicated  that  they  would  not  with- 
stand another  assault.  The  struggle  was  then  renewed  in 
the  Senate  and  with  every  indication  that  the  Senate  would 
insist  upon  its  amendment.  It  was  then  that  your  article 
appeared.  Its  influence  was  immediate  and  potential.  Men 
thought  that  if  you  the  extremest  radical  could  accept  the 
House  proposition  they  might  safely  do  the  same.  Had  the 
Senate  adhered  one  of  two  things  would  have  happened, 
either  the  House  would  have  seceded  or  the  amendment 
would  have  failed. 

Had  the  House  concurred  I  fear  that  we  should  have 
failed  to  carry  several  States  w^hich  have  since  ratified  it. 

Upon  reflection  I  think  as  at  the  time  I  thought  that  your 
voice  saved  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 

I  am  very  truly, 

Geo.  S.  Boutwell. 
Wendell  Phillips,  Esq. 
Boston. 

P.  S.  This  letter  is  ncrt  for  the  public  use  in  so  far  as 
names  are  mentioned,  and  of  course,  not  for  publication. 

G,  S.  B. 

The  article  of  Mr.  Phillips  became  so  important  in  its  in- 
fluence upon  the  final  action  of  the  Senate  that  I  reproduce  it 
in  justice  to  Mr.  Phillips  and  as  a  further  record  of  an  his- 
torical event. 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION   51 

"  We  see  the  action  of  the  Senate  touching  the  Constitu- 
tional Amendment  with  great  anxiety.  The  House  had  passed 
a  simple  measure,  one  covering  all  the  ground  that  people  are 
ready  to  occupy.  It  answered  completely  the  lesson  of  the 
war.  Its  simplicity  gave  it  all  the  chance  that  exists  for  any 
form  of  amendment  being  ratified. 

"  Why  was  it  not  left  in  that  shape?  Leaving  out  of  sight 
the  manifest  risk  of  attempting  too  much,  the  very  fact  of  the 
little  time  left  before  the  session  closes,  was  warning  enough 
to  clutch  at  anything  satisfactory  and  to  run  no  risk  of  possi- 
ble disagreement  between  the  Houses.  We  wait  further 
knowledge  before  indulging  any  conjectures  as  to  the  motive 
for  this  strange  course  of  the  Senate;  before  even  suspecting 
that  it  grew  out  of  any  concealed  hate  toward  the  whole  meas- 
ure and  was  indeed  a  trick  to  defeat  it.  Whoever,  in  either 
House,  gratifies  some  personal  whim  to  the  extent  of  defeat- 
ing or  even  postponing  this  measure  will  incur  the  gravest 
responsibility.  We  exhort  every  man  who  professes  himself 
a  friend  of  liberty  to  drop  all  undue  attachment  to  any  form 
of  words  and  to  co-operate,  heartily,  earnestly,  with  the  great 
body  of  the  members  in  carrying  through  as  promptly  as  pos- 
sible, any  form  which  includes  the  substance  of  a  constitu- 
tional protection  to  the  votes  and  right  to  office  of  the  col- 
ored race.  That  is  the  work  of  the  hour.  That  is  the  lesson 
the  war  has  burned  in  on  the  brain  and  conscience  of  the  Na- 
tion. 

"  To  include  with  this,  '  Nationality,  education  creed,' 
etc.,  is  utter  lack  of  common  sense.  Such  a  total  forgetful- 
ness  of  the  commonest  political  prudence  as  makes  it  hard  to 
credit  the  good  intentions  of  the  proposers. 

"  Our  disappointment  is  the  greater  because  we  had  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Senators  who  have  this  matter  in  charge, 
would  be  the  last  men  to  forget  themselves  at  such  a  crisis. 
They  have  been  timidly  '  practical,'  ludicrously  tied  up  to 


52  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

precedents,  when,  in  times  past  we  have  urged  them  to  some 
act  whicli  seemed  likely  to  jeopard  party.  Then  Sir  Oracle 
was  never  more  sententious,  more  full  of  *  wise  saws  and  mod- 
ern instances,'  than  they.  The  inch  they  were  willing  to 
move  ahead  was  hardly  visible  to  the  naked  eye.  How  they 
lectured  us  on  the  '  too  fast '  and  '  too  far  '  policy!  Now  in 
an  emergency  which  calls  for  the  most  delicate  handling,  they 
tear  up  not  one  admitted  abuse,  but  include  in  the  grasp  half 
a  dozen  obstinate  prejudices,  which  no  logic  of  events  has 
loosened.  For  the  first  time  in  our  lives  we  beseech  them  to 
be  a  little  more  politicians — and  a  little  less  reformers — as 
those  functions  are  usually  understood." 

Under  the  date  of  March  i8,  1869,  I  received  from  Mr. 
Phillips  a  letter  in  acknowledgment  of  my  letter  of  thanks 
and  commendation,  in  these  words : 

"  Dear  Sir:  — 

"  Thank  you  for  the  intimation  in  your  letter.  I  am  glad 
if  any  words  of  mine  helped  get  rid  of  the  too  prompt  action 
at  that  time.  I  think  it  w^as  of  the  greatest  importance  to  act 
at  once." 

The  public  mind  seems  to  be  misled  in  regard  to  the  scope 
and  legal  value  of  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments. 
The  amendments  were  in  the  nature  of  grants  of  power  to  the 
National  Grovemment,  and  in  a  corresponding  degree  they 
were  limitations  of  the  powers  of  the  States,  but  the  grants 
of  power  to  the  nation  were  also  subject  to  limitations.  Until 
the  ratification  of  the  amendments  the  States  had  full  power 
to  extend  the  right  of  suffrage,  or  to  restrict  its  enjoyment 
with  the  freedom  that  they  possessed  w^hen  the  Treaty  of 
Peace  of  1783  had  been  signed,  and  when  the  Constitution 
had  not  been  framed  and  ratified. 

All  limitations  of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  male  inhabitants 


THE  AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION    53 

of  twenty-one  years  of  age,  must  fall  under  the  control  of  the 
Fourteenth  or  Fifteenth  Amendments. 

If  in  any  State  the  right  to  vote  shall  be  "  denied  or 
abridged  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude,"  the  statutes  may  be  annulled  by  a  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  Neither  the  people  of  the  United  States  in 
their  political  sovereignty,  nor  the  political  branch  of  the 
Government  in  its  representative  capacity  can  exert  any  direct 
influence  upon  the  decision  of  the  questions  that  may  arise. 
The  questions  that  may  arise  will  be  judicial  questions,  and 
they  will  fall  under  the  decision  of  the  judicial  tribunals. 
Hence  there  has  never  been  a  time  when  it  was  the  duty  or 
when  it  was  in  the  power  or  within  the  scope  of  the  duty  of 
the  executive  branch  of  the  National  Government  to  take  offi- 
cial notice  of  the  legislation  in  some  of  •  the  former  slave 
States,  which  is  designed  manifestly,  to  limit  the  voting  power 
of  the  negro  population  in  those  States. 

If  such  legislation  does  not  fall  under  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment it  will  be  subject  to  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment, — a  proportionate  loss  of  representative 
power  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  in  the  Electoral 
Colleges. 

As  one  of  the  three  remaining  members  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  and  as  one  of  the  three  remaining  members 
of  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  I  wish  to  say,  without 
any  reservation  whatever,  that  the  amendments  are  accom- 
plishing and  are  destined  to  accomplish  all  that  was  expected 
by  the  committees  that  were  charged  with  the  duty  of  pro- 
viding for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  freedmen. 

They  were  relieved  from  the  disparaging  distinctions  that 
came  into  existence  with  the  system  of  slavery.  They  were 
placed  upon  an  equality  with  other  citizens  and  in  the  forms 
of  law  all  discriminations  affecting  unfavorably  the  right  of 
suffrage  must  apply  equally  to  all  citizens.    The  injustice  and 


54  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

unwisdom  of  the  restrictive  legislation  in  which  the  Southern 
States  are  indulging,  are  subjects  of  concern  for  the  whole 
country,  but  the  negro  populations  have  no  ground  for  the 
complaint  that  their  rights  have  been  neglected  by  the  Gen- 
eral Government. 

This,  however,  is  true :  The  negro  population,  in  common 
with  all  others,  has  ground  for  just  and  continuing  complaint 
against  the  legislation  of  Congress  by  which  a  portion  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  have  been  denationalized 
on  account  of  race  or  color,  or  on. account  of  a  condition  of 
mental  or  physical  inferiority. 

The  process  of  reasoning  by  which  the  legislation  of  the 
States  of  the  South  is  condemned,  by  those  who  uphold  the 
legislation  in  regard  to  Hawaii  involves  a  question  in  political 
ethics  which  for  the  moment  I  am  not  able  to  answer  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  to  myself. 


XXXI 

INVESTIGATIONS   FOLLOWING  THE   CIVIL 

WAR 

IN  the  years  1865,  '66  and  '67  three  important  subjects  of 
inquiry  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  committees  of 
which  I  was  a  member. 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives by  resolutions  adopted  respectively  the  9th  and 
30th  days  of  April,  1866,  was  directed  "  to  inquire  into  the 
nature  of  the  evidence  implicating  Jefferson  Davis  and  others 
in  the  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln." 

James  M.  Ashley  of  Ohio  introduced  a  resolution  for  the 
impeachment  of  President  Johnson,  and  on  the  7th  day  of 
January,  1867,  the  House  authorized  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  "  to  inquire  into  the  official  conduct  of  Andrew 
Johnson,  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  discharging 
the  powers  and  duties  of  President  of  the  United  States," 
etc. 

By  a  resolution  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  passed  the 
I2th  and  13th  of  December,  1865,  a  joint  committee  was 
created  under  instructions  to  "  inquire  into  the  condition  of 
the  States  which  formed  the  so-called  Confederate  States 
of  America  and  report  whether  they  or  any  of  them  are 
entitled  to  be  represented  in  either  House  of  Congress." 

William  Pitt  Fessenden  was  chairman  on  the  part  of  the 
Senate  and  Thaddeus  Stevens  was  chairman  on  the  part 
of  the  House.  Upon  the  death  of  Mr.  Stevens  I  succeeded  to 
his  place.    The  testimony  taken  in  these  cases  fills  three  huge 

55 


S6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

volumes.  No  inconsiderable  part  of  the  testimony  was  taken 
by  myself,  and  I  was  but  seldom  absent  from  the  meetings  of 
the  committees. 

JOHN  WILKES  BOOTH 

In  no  other  situation  in  life  is  the  character  of  a  man 
more  fully  and  truthfully  brought  into  view  than  when  he  is 
placed  upon  the  witness-stand  and  subjected  to  an  examination 
by  counsel  or  others  who  aim  to  support  opposite  opinions  and 
to  reach  adverse  results.  The  committees  that  conducted  the 
investigations  were  composed  of  men  who  entertained  oppo- 
site views  in  regard  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  government 
and  in  regard  to  the  impeachment  of  President  Johnson. 
There  was  also  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  the  question  of 
the  responsibility  of  the  Confederate  authorities  for  the  as- 
sassination of  Mr.  Lincoln.  As  a  consequence  of  this  diversity 
of  opinion  the  witnesses  were  subjected  to  the  equivalent  of 
a  cross-examination  in  a  court  of  justice.  Some  of  the  im- 
pressions of  men  that  I  received  in  the  many  hearings,  and 
some  of  the  opinions  I  formed,  are  recorded  here. 

In  each  branch  of  these  comprehensive  inquiries  there  may 
be  found  something  in  the  nature  of  evidence  that  may  appear 
to  have  a  bearing  upon  the  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 
It  is  my  purpose  in  these  paragraphs  to  bring  into  view  the 
testimony  which  relates  directly  to  John  Wilkes  Booth,  the 
most  conspicuous  and  without  question  the  chief  criminal 
in  the  tragedy  of  the  assassination  of  President  Lincoln,  and 
the  attempt  upon  the  life  of  Mr.  Seward. 

The  first  step  in  the  proceedings  which  culminated  in  the 
murder  was  the  deposit  at  Surrattsville  (a  place  about  five 
miles  from  Washington,  and  owned  by  the  Surratt  family), 
of  a  carbine,  two  bottles  of  whisky,  a  small  coil  of  rope,  a 
field  glass,  a  monkey  wrench,  and  some  other  articles. 

The  house  was  kept  by  a  man  named  Lloyd,  and  neither 
the  character  of  the  house  nor  that  of  the  keeper  could 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  57 

bear  a  rigid  test  in  ethics.  The  deposit  was  made  about  the 
first  of  March  by  John  H.  Surratt,  Atzerodt  and  David  E. 
Herold,  all  of  whom  were  afterwards  implicated  in  the  crime. 
The  articles  were  received  and  secreted  by  Lloyd,  but  only 
after  objections  by  him,  as  appears  from  his  testimony, 
Lloyd  connected  Mrs.  Surratt  with  the  crime  by  these  facts 
as  related  by  him.  She  called  upon  Lloyd  the  Tuesday  pre- 
ceding the  fatal  Friday  and  gave  him  this  message :  ''  She 
told  me  to  have  them  ready  (speaking  of  the  shooting-irons) 
that  they  would  be  called  for  or  wanted  soon,  I  have  for- 
gotten which." 

Mrs.  Surratt  made  a  second  call  the  afternoon  preceding 
the  murder,  when  this  conversation  took  place,  as  stated  by 
Lloyd :  "  When  I  drove  up  in  my  buggy  to  the  back  yard 
Mrs.  Surratt  came  out  to  meet  me.  She  handed  me  a  package^ 
and  told  me  as  well  as  I  remember  to  get  the  guns  or  those 
things — I  really  forget  now  which,  though  my  impression 
is  that  guns  was  the  expression  she  made  use  of — and  a 
couple  of  bottles  of  whisky  and  give  them  to  whoever  should 
call  for  them  that  night." 

That  night,  after  the  murder,  Booth  and  Herold  called, 
and  took  the  carbine  and  drank  of  the  whisky.  In  these  facts 
there  is  basis  for  a  reasonable  theory.  The  theory  is  this. 
Previous  to  the  fall  of  Richmond  and  the  surrender  of  Lee's 
army  the  Confederate  authorities  set  on  foot  a  scheme  for 
the  capture  and  abduction  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  articles  de- 
posited, including  the  rope  and  the  monkey  wrench,  might 
be  useful  had  Mr.  Lincoln  been  abducted,  but  when  the 
crime  became  murder  the  rope  and  wrench  were  neglected. 

This  view  derives  support  from  two  directions.  In  Booth's 
diary  is  this  entry:  "  April  13-14  Friday.  The  Ides.  Until 
to-day  nothing  was  ever  thought  of  sacrificing  to  our  coun- 
try's wrongs.  For  six  months  we  had  worked  to  capture. 
But  our  cause  being  almost  lost  something  decisive  and  great 


58  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

must  be  done.  But  its  failure  was  owing  to  others  who 
did  not  strike  for  their  country  with  a  heart." 

Colonel  Baker,  a  detective,  testified  that  when  he  was  in 
Canada,  engaged  in  negotiations  for  the  purchase  of  letters 
that  had  passed  between  the  Confederate  authorities  at  Rich- 
mond and  Clay,  Tucker,  Thompson  and  others,  he  read  a 
letter  from  Jefiferson  Davis  to  Jacob  Thompson  dated  March 
8,  1865,  in  which  was  this  expression:  "The  consumma- 
tion of  the  act  that  would  have  done  more  to  have  ended 
this  terrible  strife,  being  delayed,  has  probably  ruined  our 
cause." 

The  scheme  for  the  abduction  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  wild 
scheme,  born  of  desperation,  and  its  success  would  have 
worked  only  evil  to  the  Confederacy.  The  purpose  of  the 
North  would  have  been  strengthened,  the  public  feeling  would 
have  been  embittered  and  the  friendship  of  England  and 
of  the  Continental  states  would  have  been  suppressed.  When 
Lee  had  surrendered,  when  Davis  was  fleeing  from  Rich- 
mond, when  Benjamin  was  preparing  to  leave  the  country, 
the  leaders  of  the  Confederacy  could  not  have  entertained  a 
project  for  the  capture  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  nor  of  any  injury  to 
him  whatever.  Their  opposition  to  Mr.  Lincoln  was  not 
tainted  wath  personal  hostility.  One  fact  remains;  the  per- 
sons who  had  knowledge  of  the  project  to  abduct  Mr.  Lincoln 
and  who  were  engaged  in  it  at  Washington,  were  implicated 
in  the  final  crime. 

If  Booth's  diary  can  be  accepted  as  a  faithful  representa- 
tion of  his  mental  condition  it  will  appear  that  he  had  on  that 
fatal  Friday  submitted  himself  to  the  influence  of  three  strong 
passions.  He  had  accepted  the  South  as  his  country,  and 
he  had  come  to  look  upon  Mr.  Lincoln  as  a  tyrant  and  as 
its  enemy.  Hence  he  was  influenced  with  hatred  for  Mr. 
Lincoln.  Finally  he  had  become  maddened  by  an  ambition  to 
rival,  or  to  excel  Brutus.     The  influence  of  his  profession  is 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  59 

to  be  seen  in  the  entries  in  his  diary  in  the  days  following 
the  14th  of  April : 

"  I  can  never  repent  it,  though  we  hated  to  kill.  Our 
country  owed  all  our  troubles  to  him,  and  God  simply  made 
me  the  instrument  of  his  punishment. 

"  The  country  is  not  what  it  was.  This  forced  union  is 
not  what  I  have  loved.  I  have  no  desire  to  outlive  my  coun- 
try. .  .  .  After  being  hunted  like  a  dog  through 
swamps,  woods,  and  last  night  being  chased  by  gunboats  till 
I  was  forced  to  return  wet,  cold,  and  starving  with  every 
man's  hand  against  me,  I  am  here  in  despair.  And  why? 
For  doing  what  Brutus  was  honored  for — what  made  Tell 
a  hero.  And  yet  I  for  striking  down  a  greater  tyrant  than 
they  ever  knew,  am  looked  upon  as  a  common  cut-throat. 
My  action  was  purer  than  either  of  theirs.  One  hoped  to 
be  great.  The  other  had  not  only  his  country's,  but  his  own 
wrongs  to  avenge.  I  knew  no  private  wrong.  I  struck  for 
my  country  and  that  alone.  A  country  that  groaned  beneath 
this  tyranny,  and  prayed  for  this  end,  and  yet  now  behold 
the  cold  hand  they  extend  to  me. 

"  God  cannot  pardon  me  if  I  have  done  wrong,  yet  I  cannot 
see  my  wrong  except  in  serving  a  degenerate  people.  The 
little,  the  very  little  I  left  behind  to  clear  my  name,  the 
Government  will  not  allow  to  be  printed.  So  ends  all.  For 
my  country  I  have  given  up  all  that  makes  life  sweet  and 
holy,  brought  misery  upon  my  family,  and  am  sure  there 
is  no  pardon  for  me  in  the  Heaven  since  man  so  condemns 
me. 

"  I  do  not  repent  the  blow  I  struck.  I  may  before  my  God 
but  not  to  man.  I  think  I  have  done  well.  Though  I  am 
abandoned  with  the  curse  of  Cain  upon  me,  when  if  the 
world  knew  my  heart  that  one  blow  would  have  made  me 
great,  though  I  did  desire  no  greatness." 

Finally,  he  writes: 


6o  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

"  I  bless  the  entire  world.  Have  never  hated  or  wronged 
anyone.  Tiiis  last  was  not  a  wrong  unless  God  deems  it  so, 
and  it  is  with  him  to  damn  or  bless  me." 

These  extracts  from  Booth's  diary  reveal  the  influences 
that  controlled  him  in  the  great  tragedy  in  which  he  became 
the  principal  actor. 

41  *  4t  *  ♦ 

The  death  of  Booth  was  only  a  lesser  tragedy  than  the 
death  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Following  the  murder  and  escape  of  Booth  a  small  military 
force  was  organized  hastily  under  the  direction  and  com- 
mand of  Colonel  Lafayette  C.  Baker,  a  detective  in  the  serv- 
ice of  the  W'ar  Department.  The  force  consisted  of  about 
thirty  men  chiefly  convalescents  from  the  army  hospitals  in 
Washington.  Colonel  Everton  G.  Conger  was  in  command 
of  the  expedition,  and  his  testimony  contains  a  clear  account 
of  what  transpired  at  Garrett's  Farm,  where  Booth  was 
captured  and  shot.  Conger  reached  Garrett's  Farm  on  the 
night  of  the  25th  of  April,  or  the  early  morning  of  the  26th. 
The  men  were  posted  around  the  tobacco  shed  in  which 
Booth  and  Herold  were  secreted  and  their  surrender  was 
demanded  by  Conger.  Booth  refused  to  surrender  and  ten- 
dered, as  a  counter  proposition,  a  personal  contest  with  the 
entire  force.  Herold  surrendered.  Upon  Booth's  persistent 
refusal  to  surrender,  a  fire  was  lighted  in  a  corner  of  the 
building.  Booth  then  came  forward  wath  his  carbine  in  his  hand 
and  engaged  in  conversation  with  Lieut.  L.  Byron  Baker. 
While  so  engaged  a  musket  was  fired  from  the  opposite  side 
of  the  shed  and  Booth  fell,  wounded  fatally  in  the  neck,  at 
or  near  the  spot  where  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  struck.  Conger 
had  given  orders  to  the  men  not  to  shoot  under  any  circum- 
stances. The  examination  disclosed  the  fact  that  the  shot 
was  fired  by  a  sergeant,  named  Boston  Corbett.  When 
Colonel  Conger  asked  Corbett  why  he  shot  without  orders 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  6i 

Corbett  saluted  the  colonel  and  said :  "  Colonel,  Providence 
directed  me."  Thus  the  parallel  runs.  Booth  claimed  that 
he  was  the  instrument  of  the  Almighty  in  the  assassination 
of  Lincoln,  and  Boston  Corbett  claimed  that  he  acted  under 
the  direction  of  Providence  when  he  shot  Booth. 

Booth  was  shot  at  about  three  o'clock  in  the  morning  of 
April  26,  and  he  died  at  fifteen  minutes  past  seven.  During 
that  time  he  was  conscious  for  about  three  fourths  of  an  hour. 
He  asked  whether  a  person  called  Jett  had  betrayed  him. 
His  only  other  intelligible  remark  was  this : 

"  Tell  my  mother  I  died  for  my  country." 

During  the  afternoon  preceding  the  assassination  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  Booth  met  John  Mathews  a  brother  actor,  and  re- 
quested him  to  hand  a  letter  to  Mr.  Coyle,  of  the  National  In- 
telligencer, the  next  morning.  Mathews  had  a  part  in  the 
play  at  Ford's  Theater.  When  the  shot  was  fired  and 
Mathews  was  changing  his  dress  to  leave  the  theater,  he  dis- 
covered the  letter,  which  for  the  time  he  had  forgotten.  When 
he  reached  his  rooms  he  opened  the  letter.  It  contained  an 
avowal  of  Booth's  purpose  to  murder  the  President,  and 
he  named  three  of  his  associates.  Booth  referred  to  a  plan 
that  had  failed,  and  he  then  added :  "  The  moment  has  at 
length  arrived  when  my  plans  must  be  changed."  These 
statements  were  made  by  Mathews  from  recollection.  Math- 
ews destroyed  the  letter  under  the  influence  of  the  appre- 
hension that  its  possession  would  work  his  ruin. 

The  records  seem  to  warrant  certain  conclusions: 

1.  That  the  Confederate  authorities  at  Richmond  made 
a  plan  for  the  capture  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  that  Booth,  Mrs. 
Surratt  and  others — who  were  implicated  finally  in  the  mur- 
der— w^ere  concerned  in  the  project  to  abduct  the  President 
and  to  hold  him  as  a  hostage. 

2.  That  that  undertaking  failed. 

3.  That  following  Lee's  surrender  and  the  downfall  of  the 


6a  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Confederacy,  Booth  originated  tlie  plan  to  murder  the  Presi- 
dent, under  the  influence  of  the  motives  and  reasons  that  are 
set  forth  in  his  diary  and  in  the  letter  to  Mr.  Coyle. 

4.  His  influence  over  the  persons  who  were  involved  in 
the  conspiracy  to  ahduct  Mr.  Lincoln,  was  so  great  that  he 
was  able  to  command  their  aid  in  the  commission  of  the 
final  crime. 

When  the  investigations  were  concluded  there  remained 
in  the  possession  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  a  quantity 
of  papers,  affidavits,  letters  and  memoranda  of  no  value  as 
evidence.  These  were  placed  in  a  sealed  package.  The 
package  was  deposited  with  the  clerk  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. The  preservation  of  the  papers  may  have  been 
an  error.  They  should  have  been  destroyed  by  the  committee. 
Some  doubts  were  expressed  however  as  to  the  authority 
of  the  committee.  Further  investigations  were  suggested 
as  not  impossible.  I  am  the  only  person  living  who  has 
knowledge  of  the  papers.  They  are  now  the  possession  of 
the  House  of  Representatives.  It  is  not  in  the  public  interest 
that  the  papers  should  become  the  possession  of  the  public. 

MR.    LINCOLN    AND   THE   ATTACK    ON    FORT    SUMTER 

The  testimony  of  John  Minor  Botts  of  Virginia,  given  be- 
fore the  Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  February  18, 
1866,  presents  Mr.  Lincoln  as  a  diplomatist  at  the  outset  of  his 
experience  as  President. 

Mr.  Botts  had  been  a  leading  member  of  the  Whig  Party 
and  he  was  a  Union  man  from  the  beginning  of  the  contest 
to  the  end  of  the  war.  As  the  work  of  secession  was  advanc- 
ing in  the  Gulf  States  Mr.  Lincoln  became  anxious  for  the 
fate  of  the  border  States  and  especially  for  Virginia  and  Ken- 
tucky, which  promised  to  serve  as  barriers  to  the  aggressive 
movements  of  the  South  in  case  of  war.  Mr.  Botts  came  to 
Washington  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  early  days 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  63 

of  April,  1 86 1,  and  they  were  together  and  in  private  con- 
ference during  the  evening  of  the  7th  of  April  from  seven 
to  eleven  o'clock.  In  the  conversation  of  that  evening  the 
President  gave  Mr.  Botts  an  account  of  the  steps  that  he 
had  taken  to  prevent  a  collision  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston. 
Mr.  Summers  and  Mr.  Baldwin  of  Virginia  had  been  dele- 
gates in  the  Peace  Congress  and  they  had  been  counted 
among  the  Union  men  of  the  State.  Soon  after  the  inaugura- 
tion the  President  was  informed  that  the  small  garrison  in 
Fort  Sumter  was  nearly  destitute  of  provisions  and  that 
an  attempt  to  add  to  the  supply  would  be  resisted.  The 
President,  Mr.  Summers  and  Mr.  Botts  had  served  together 
as  Whigs  in  the  Thirtieth  Congress  and  the  President  invited 
Mr.  Summers  by  letter  and  by  a  special  messenger  to  a 
conference  in  Washington.  To  this  invitation  no  answer  was 
given  by  Mr.  Summers  until  the  5th  of  April,  when  Mr. 
Baldwin  appeared  and  said  that  he  had  come  upon  the  request 
of  Mr.  Summers.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  at  once :  "  Ah !  Mr. 
Baldwin,  why  did  you  not  come  sooner?  I  have  been  ex- 
pecting you  gentlemen  to  come  to  me  for  more  than  a  week 
past.  I  had  a  most  important  proposition  to  make  to  you. 
I  am  afraid  you  have  come  too  late.  However,  I  will  make 
the  proposition  now.  We  have  in  Fort  Sumter  with  Major 
Anderson  about  eighty  men  and  I  learn  from  Major  Ander- 
son that  his  provisions  are  nearly  exhausted  ...  I 
have  not  only  written  to  Governor  Pickens,  but  I  have  sent 
a  special  messenger  to  say  that  if  he  will  allow  Major  An- 
derson to  obtain  his  marketing  at  the  Charleston  market, 
or,  if  he  objects  to  allowing  our  people  to  land  at  Charleston, 
if  he  will  have  it  sent  to  him,  that  I  will  make  no  effort  to 
provision  the  fort,  but,  that  if  he  does  not  do  that,  I  will 
not  permit  these  people  to  starve,  and  that  I  shall  send  pro- 
visions down, — and  that  if  he  fires  on  that  vessel  he  will  fire 
upon   an  unarmed   vessel,   loaded   with  nothing  but  bread 


64  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

but  I  shall  at  the  same  time  send  a  fleet  along  with  her,  with 
instructions   not  to  enter  the  harbor  of  Charleston   unless 
the  vessel  is  fired  into ;  and  if  she  is,  then  the  fleet  is  to  enter 
the  harbor  and  protect  her.     Now,  Mr.  Baldwin,  that  fleet 
is  now  lying  in  the  harbor  of  New  York  and  will  be  ready 
to  sail  this  afternoon  at  five  o'clock,  and  although  I  fear  it 
is  almost  too  late,  yet  I  w'ill  submit  anyway  the  proposition 
which   I   intended  for  Mr.   Summers.     Your  convention  in 
Richmond,  Mr.  Baldwin,  has  been  sitting  now  nearly  two 
months  and  all  they  have  done  has  been  to  shake  the  rod  over 
my  head.     You  have  recently  taken  a  vote  in  the  Virginia 
Convention,  on  the  right  of  secession,  which  was  rejected  by 
ninety  to  forty-five,  a  majority  of  two  thirds,  showing  the 
strength  of  the  Union  Party  in  that  convention;    and,  if  you 
will  go  back  to  Richmond  and  get  that  Union  majority  to 
adjourn   and   go   home   without   passing   the   ordinance  of 
secession,  so  anxious  am  I  for  the  preservation  of  the  peace 
of  this  country  and  to  save  Virginia  and  the  other  States 
from  going  out,  that  I  will  take  the  responsibility  of  evacu- 
ating Fort  Sumter,  and  take  the  chance  of  negotiating  with 
the  cotton  States,  which  have  already  gone  out." 

This  quotation  is  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Botts  and 
there  cannot  be  better  evidence  of  the  facts  existing  in  the 
first  days  of  April,  nor  a  more  trustworthy  statement  of  the 
position  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  regard  to  the  secession  movement. 
At  that  time  the  Virginia  Convention  had  rejected  a  proposed 
ordinance  of  secession  by  a  vote  of  ninety  to  forty-five,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  hopes  that  his 
proposition  might  calm  the  temper  and  change  the  purposes 
of  the  secessionists  in  that  State  if  it  did  not  change  the 
schemes  of  Governor  Pickens,  of  which,  indeed,  the  prospect 
was  only  slight. 

In  his  Inaugural  Address,  and  in  all  his  other  public  utter- 
ances, Mr.  Lincoln  sought  to  place  the  responsibility  of  war 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  65 

upon  the  seceding  States,  At  a  later  day  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  a 
conversation  with  Senator  Sumner  and  myself,  expressed 
regret  that  he  had  neglected  to  station  troops  in  Virginia  in 
advance  of  the  occupation  of  the  vicinity  of  Alexandria  by 
the  Confederates,  a  course  of  action  to  which  he  had  been 
urged  by  Mr.  Chase  and  others. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  proposition  for  the  relief  of  Fort  Sumter 
was  rejected  by  Mr.  Baldwin,  as  was  the  proposition  for  the 
adjournment  of  the  convention,  sine  die. 

When  Mr.  Botts  appeared  the  time  had  passed  when  ar- 
rangements could  have  been  made  for  the  relief  of  Sumter 
and  the  adjournment  of  the  convention.  Although  the  situa- 
tion may  not  have  been  realized  at  the  time  it  was  not  the 
less  true  that  Mr.  Botts  and  the  small  number  of  Union  men 
in  Virginia  were  powerless  in  presence  of  the  movement  in 
favor  of  secession  under  the  lead  of  Tyler,  Sedden  and 
others. 

The  political  side  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  character  is  seen  in 
the  fact  that  he  enjoined  secrecy  upon  Mr.  Botts.  He  may 
have  been  unwilling  to  allow  his  supporters  in  the  North  to 
know  how  far  he  had  gone  in  the  line  of  conciliation. 
In  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Baldwin,  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
given  an  assurance  that  upon  the  acceptance  of  his  two 
propositions  he  would  evacuate  Fort  Sumter.  When  Mr. 
Lincoln  made  these  facts  known  to  Mr.  Botts  at  the  eve- 
ning interview,  Mr.  Botts  said :  "  Will  you  authorize  me  to 
make  that  proposition  to  the  Union  men  of  the  convention  ?  I 
will  take  a  steamboat  to-morrow  morning,  and  have  a  meeting 
of  the  Union  men  to-morrow  night,  and  I  will  guarantee  with 
my  head,  that  they  will  adopt  your  proposition."  In  reply, 
Mr.  Lincoln  said :  "  It  is  too  late.  The  fleet  has  sailed."  In 
truth  it  was  too  late  for  the  acceptance  of  the  propositions 
in  Virginia.  The  Union  men  were  powerless,  and  the  seces- 
sionists were  dominant  in  affairs  and  already  vindictive.    The 


66  SIXTY  YEARS  IN   PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

charge  that  Mr.  Seward  gave  a  promise  that  Sumter  would 
be  abandoned,  may  or  it  may  not  have  been  true,  but  there 
caji  be  no  ground  for  doubting  the  statement  made  by  Mr. 
Botts  in  regard  to  the  terms  tendered  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and 
which  were  rejected  by  Mr.  Baldwin. 

Mr.  Baldwin  admitted  the  interview  with  Mr.  Lincoln, 
and  the  nature  of  it  as  herein  given,  to  Mr.  John  F.  Lewis, 
who  was  a  Union  man  and  a  member  of  the  convention 
that  adopted  the  Ordinance  of  Secession  by  a  vote  of  eighty- 
eight  to  fifty-five. 

Of  the  three  witnesses,  Baldwin,  Botts  and  Lewis,  Mr. 
Baldwin  was  the  first  witness  who  was  examined  by  the 
Committee  on  Reconstruction.  At  that  time  the  committee 
had  no  knowledge  of  the  conversation  between  Mr.  Baldwin 
and  President  Lincoln.  Speaking,  apparently,  under  the 
influence  of  the  criticisms  of  Botts  and  Lewis  of  his  rejection 
of  Mr.  Lincoln's  propositions,  Baldwin  introduced  the  sub- 
ject with  the  remark :  "  I  had  a  good  deal  of  interesting 
conversation  with  him  (tha^  is  with  Mr.  Lincoln)  that  eve- 
ning. I  was  about  to  state  that  I  have  reason  to  believe  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  himself  had  given  an  account  of  this  conversation 
which  has  been  understood — but  I  am  sure  mti-understood — ' 
by  the  persons  with  whom  he  talked,  as  giving  the  representa- 
tion of  it,  that  he  had  offered  to  me,  that  if  the  Virginia 
Convention  would  adjourn  sine  die  he  would  withdraw  the 
troops  from  Sumter  and  Pickens."  As  there  was  no  occasion 
in  the  conversation  between  Lincoln  and  Baldwin  for  a 
reference  to  Fort  Pickens,  and  as  the  President  did  not  men- 
tion Fort  Pickens  in  the  account  of  the  conversation  that  he 
gave  to  Mr.  Botts,  the  denial  of  Mr.  Baldwin  may  fall  under 
one  of  the  forms  of  falsehood  mentioned  by  Shakespeare. 

The  evidence  is  conclusive  to  this  point :  That  at  an  in- 
terview at  the  Executive  Mansion,  April  5,   1861,  between 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  67 

President  Lincoln  and  Colonel  John  B.  Baldwin,  then  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Virginia  Convention  that  finally  adopted  the  Or- 
dinance of  Secession,  President  Lincoln  assured  Mr.  Baldwin 
that  he  would  evacuate  Fort  Sumter  if  the  fort  could  be  pro- 
visioned and  the  Virginia  Convention  would  adjourn  sine  die. 
Colonel  Baldwin's  voluntary  and  qualified  denial  is  of  no 
value  in  presence  of  President  Lincoln's  report  of  the  in- 
terview as  given  by  Mr.  Botts  and  in  presence  of  the  testimony 
that  Mr.  Baldwin  did  not  deny  the  truthfulness  of  Mr.  Botts' 
limited  statement,  when  it  was  asserted  by  Mr.  Botts  in  the 
presence  of  Lewis. 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS  AND  HIS  STATE-RIGHTS  DOCTRINES 

Upon  the  death  of  Mr.  Calhoun  the  task  of  maintaining 
the  extreme  doctrine  of  State  Rights,  as  that  doctrine  had 
been  taught  by  Mr.  Calhoun  fell  upon  Jefferson  Davis  and 
Alexander  H.  Stephens.  That  doctrine  was  carried  to  its 
practical  results  in  the  ordinances  of  secession  as  they  were 
adopted  by  the  respective  States  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Davis. 

If  Mr.  Stephens  advised  against  secession,  the  advice 
given  was  not  due  to  any  doubt  of  the  right  of  a  State  to 
secede  from  the  Union,  but  to  doubts  of  the  wisdom  of  the 
undertaking. 

In  form  of  proceedings  Mr.  Stephens  was  examined  by  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  the  nth  and  12th  days  of  April, 
1866,  but  in  fact  I  was  the  only  member  of  the  committee  who 
was  present,  and  I  conducted  the  examination  in  my  own 
way,  and  without  help  or  hindrance  from  others. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  Governor  Clifford  of  Massachusetts, 
that  the  examination  of  Mr.  Stephens  gave  the  best  exposition 
of  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights  that  had  been  made.  I  was 
then  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  in  the  convention  of  1787 
the  form  of  the  Preamble  to  the  Constitution  was  so  changed 


68  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

as  to  justify  the  opinion,  if  not  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that 
the  State-Rights  doctrines  had  been  considered  and  aban- 
doned. In  two  plans  of  a  constitution,  one  submitted  by  Mr. 
Randolph,  and  one  by  Mr.  Charles  Pinckney,  and  in  the 
original  draft  of  the  Constitution  as  reported  by  Mr.  Rut- 
ledge,  the  source  of  authority  was  laid  in  the  respective  States, 
which  were  named.  This  form  was  adhered  to  in  the  Rut- 
ledge  report,  which  was  made  August  6,  i7«S7.  On  the  12th 
of  September  the  Committee  on  Style  reported  the  Preamble 
which  opens  thus :  "  We  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
etc."  This  change  seems  not  to  have  been  known  to  Mr. 
Webster,  nor  have  I  noticed  a  reference  to  it  in  any  of  the 
speeches  that  were  made  in  the  period  of  the  active  con- 
troversy on  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights. 

Mr.  Stephens  was  a  clear-headed  and  uncompromising  ex- 
positor and  defender  of  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights  as  that 
doctrine  was  accepted  by  General  Lee  and  by  the  inhabitants 
generally  of  the  slave  States. 

Mr.  Stephens  did  not  disguise  his  opinions :  "  When  the 
State  seceded  against  my  judgment  and  vote,  I  thought  my 
ultimate  allegiance  was  due  to  her,  and  I  prepared  to  cast 
my  fortunes  and  destinies  with  hers  and  her  people  rather 
than  take  any  other  course,  even  though  it  might  lead  to 
my  sacrifice  and  her  ruin." 

When  he  was  asked  for  his  reason  for  accepting  the  ofiflce 
of  vice-president  in  the  Confederacy,  he  said :  "  My  sole  object 
was  to  do  all  the  good  I  could  in  preserving  and  perpetuating 
the  principles  of  liberty  as  established  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States."  Mr.  Stephens  advanced  to  his  posi- 
tion by  conclusively  logical  processes.  Standing  upon  the 
ground  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Republican  Party,  he  as- 
sumed that,  inasmuch  as  the  States  in  rebellion  had  never 
been  out  of  the  Union,  they  had  had  the  opportunity  at  all 
times  during  the  war  of  withdrawing  from  the  contest  and 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  69 

resuming  their  places  in  the  Senate  and  House  as  though 
nothing  had  occurred  of  which  the  existing  government 
could  take  notice. 

If,  however,  there  were  to  be  terms  of  adjustment,  then 
those  terms  must  have  a  "  continental  basis  founded  upon 
the  principles  of  mutual  convenience  and  reciprocal  advan- 
tage, and  the  recognition  of  the  separate  sovereignty  of  the 
States."  He  was  ready  for  a  conference  or  convention  of 
all  the  States,  but  he  did  not  admit  the  right  of  the  successful 
party  to  dictate  terms  to  the  States  that  had  been  in  rebel- 
lion. He  expressed  the  personal,  individual  opinion,  that 
tax  laws  passed  in  the  absence  of  representatives  from  the 
seceded  States  would  be  unconstitutional.  It  was  the  opin- 
ion of  Mr.  Stephens  that  the  people  of  Georgia  by  a  large 
majority,  thought  that  the  State  was  entitled  to  repre- 
sentation in  the  national  Congress  and  without  any  condi- 
tions. 

When  he  was  invited  to  consider  the  alternative  of  uni- 
versal suffrage  or  a  loss  of  representation  as  a  condition 
precedent  to  the  restoration  of  the  State,  he  said,  with  con- 
fidence that  neither  branch  of  the  alternative  would  be  ac- 
cepted. "  If  Georgia  is  a  State  in  the  Union  her  people  feel 
that  she  is  entitled  to  representation  without  conditions  im- 
posed by  Congress;  and  if  she  is  not  a  State  in  the  Union 
then  she  could  not  be  admitted  as  an  equal  with  the  others  if 
her  admission  were  trammeled  with  conditions  that  did  not 
apply  to  all  the  rest  alike." 

It  had  been  his  expectation,  and  in  his  opinion  such  had 
been  the  expectation  of  the  people  generally  that  the  State 
would  assume  its  place  in  the  Union  whenever  the  cause  of 
the  Confederacy  should  be  abandoned. 

Such  were  the  results  of  the  State-Rights  doctrines  as 
announced  by  the  most  intellectual  of  the  Southern  leaders 
in  the  war  of  the  Rebellion.    In  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Stephens 


70  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

a  State  could  retire  from  the  Union  either  for  purposes  of 
peace  or  of  war  and  return  at  will,  and  all  without  loss  of 
place  or  power. 

At  the  close  of  his  examination  he  made  this  declaration : 
"  My  convictions  on  the  original  abstract  question  have  un- 
dergone no  change." 

As  a  sequel  to  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Stephens,  I  mention 
the  history  of  Andrew  J.  Lewis.  When  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  assembled  in  January,  185 1,  Lewis  took  a  seat 
in  the  House  as  the  Democratic  member  from  the  town  of 
Sandisfield.  He  acted  with  the  Coalitionists,  and  he  voted 
for  Mr.  Sumner  as  United  States  Senator.  Lewis  was  re- 
turned for  the  year  1852,  and  in  General  Pierce's  administra- 
tion he  held  an  office  in  the  Boston  Custom  House. 

Upon  the  fall  of  Port  Hudson  I  received  a  letter  from 
General  Banks.  In  that  letter  he  mentioned  the  fact  that 
Lewis  was  among  the  prisoners,  holding  the  office  of  captain 
in  a  South  Carolina  regiment.  His  account  of  himself  w^as 
this :  "  I  was  born  in  South  Carolina.  When  my  State 
seceded  I  thought  I  must  go  too,  and  so  I  left  Massachusetts 
and  returned  to  South  Carolina." 

GENERAL  ULYSSES  S.  GRANT 

General  Grant's  examination  during  the  investigation 
embraced  a  variety  of  topics  and  the  report  is  a  volume  of  not 
less  than  twenty  thousand  words.  His  testimony  is  marked 
by  the  qualities  for  which  he  was  known  both  on  the  civil 
and  military  side  of  his  career.  These  qualities  were  clear- 
ness of  thought,  accuracy  and  readiness  of  memory,  direct- 
ness of  expression  and  the  absence  of  remarks  in  the  nature 
of  exaggeration  or  embellishment.  The  character  of  the 
man  and  the  history  of  events  may  gain  something  from  an 
examination  of  his  testimony  upon  three  important  points 
to  w'hich  it  related:     the  opinion  of  President  Lincoln  in 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  71 

regard  to  the  reconstruction  of  the  government;  the  opinion 
of  President  Johnson  upon  the  same  subject,  and  his  own 
view  of  the  rights  of  General  Lee  and  of  the  army  under 
his  command  that  had  surrendered  at  Appomattox. 

When  President  Johnson  entered  upon  the  work  of  re- 
constructing the  government  of  North  CaroHna  it  was 
claimed  that  he  was  giving  form  and  effect  to  the  plan  which 
President  Lincoln  had  accepted  as  a  wise  policy. 

There  was  some  foundation  for  the  claim  as  appears  from 
the  testimony  of  General  Grant,  Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Stanton, 
and  others,  but  there  is  no  ground  for  the  claim  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  matured  a  plan  or  had  accepted  any  scheme  of 
reconstruction  at  the  hands  of  any  one.  In  an  exigency,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  resignation  of  General  Hooker,  he  could 
act  immediately,  but  time  and  thought,  and  discussion  with 
others  were  accepted  as  valuable  aids,  whenever  there  was 
not  a  pressure  for  instant  action. 

General  Grant  was  examined  in  July,  1867,  and  the  open- 
ing was  conducted  by  Mr.  Eldridge  of  Wisconsin.  It  re- 
lated to  the  parole  granted  to  General  Lee  and  his  army. 
The  nature  of  the  questions  led  General  Grant  to  make  this 
remark :  "  I  will  state  here,  that  I  am  not  quite  certain 
whether  I  am  being  tried,  or  who  is  being  tried,  by  the 
questions  asked." 

General  Grant  may  have  thought  that  Mr.  Eldridge  was 
endeavoring  to  secure  from  him  an  admission  that  he  had 
exceeded  his  authority  in  the  terms  of  the  parole  granted 
to  General  Lee.  General  Grant  was  able  to  state  the  terms 
with  exactness  and  within  his  powers  as  commander  of 
the  conquering  army.  He  claimed  that  General  Lee  sur- 
rendered his  army  "  in  consideration  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  to  be  exempt  from  trial  so  long  as  they  conformed  to 
the  obligations  which  they  had  taken."  President  Johnson 
claimed  that  the  leaders  should  be  tried.     This  position  he 


72  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

abandoned  previous  to  July,    1867.     Of  an  interview  with 
President  Johnson,  General  Grant  made  this  statement : 

"  He  insisted  on  it  that  the  leaders  must  be  punished, 
and  wanted  to  know,  when  the  time  would  come  when  those 
persons  could  be  tried.  I  told  him  when  they  violated  their 
parole."  In  the  opinion  of  General  Grant  the  terms  of  the 
parole  did  not  include  Jefferson  Davis,  as  he  had  been 
captured. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  controversy  President  Johnson 
insisted  that  General  Lee  should  be  tried  for  treason.  This 
purpose  on  the  part  of  the  President  was  resisted  by  General 
Grant.     His  position,  in  his  own  language,  was  this: 

"  I  insisted  on  it  that  General  Lee  would  not  have  sur- 
rendered his  army  and  given  up  all  their  arms  if  he  had 
supposed  that  after  surrender,  he  was  going  to  be  tried 
for  treason  and  hanged.  I  thought  we  got  a  very  good 
equivalent  for  the  lives  of  a  few  leaders  in  getting  all  their 
arms  and  getting  themselves  under  control  bound  by  their 
oaths  to  obey  the  laws.  That  was  the  consideration,  which, 
I  insisted  upon,  we  had  received." 

General  Grant  added : 

"  Afterwards  he  got  to  agreeing  with  me  on  that  subject." 

On  the  question  of  political  rights  as  involved  in  the 
surrender  and  in  the  parole,  General  Grant  said: 

"  I  never  claimed  that  the  parole  gave  those  prisoners 
any  political  right  whatever.  I  thought  that  that  was  a 
matter  entirely  with  Congress,  over  which  I  had  no  control ; 
that  simply  as  general-in-chief  commanding  the  army,  I 
had  a  right  to  stipulate  for  the  surrender  on  terms  which 
protected  their  lives.  The  parole  gave  them  protection  and 
exemption  from  punishment  for  all  offences  not  in  violation 
of  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare." 

The  point  of  difference  between  General  Grant  and  Presi- 
dent Johnson  in  regard  to  the  parole  is  very  clear  from  General 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  73 

Grant's  answers  to  questions  by  Mr.  Thomas  and  Mr.  El- 
dridge. 

"  You  have  stated  your  opinion  as  to  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  General  Lee  and  his  soldiers;  do  you  mean  that  to 
include  any  political  rights?" 

"  I  have  explained  that  I  did  not." 

"  Was  there  any  difference  of  opinion  on  that  point  be- 
tween yourself  and  President  Johnson  at  any  time  ?  " 

"  On  that  point  there  was  no  difference  of  opinion ;  but 
there  was  as  to  whether  the  parole  gave  them  any  privileges 
or  rights  .  .  ,  He  claiming  that  the  time  must  come 
when  they  would  be  tried  and  punished,  and  I  claiming 
that  that  time  could  not  come  except  by  a  violation  of  their 
parole." 

Grant  claimed  also  that  the  army  that  had  surrendered 
to  Sherman  came  under  the  same  rules. 

These  quotations  give  General  Grant's  standing  as  an 
interpreter  of  public  law  and  as  a  leader  capable  of  applying 
the  rules  and  principles  of  public  law  to  practical  affairs. 
His  training  at  West  Point  may  have  given  him  a  knowledge 
of  principles  and  his  good  sense  enabled  him  to  apply  the 
principles  in  the  terms  that  he  dictated  at  Appomattox. 

General  Grant's  natural  qualities  were  such  that  with 
training  he  might  have  succeeded  in  great  causes  involving 
principles,  but  he  was  not  adapted  to  the  ordinary  business 
of  a  county-court  lawyer. 

It  is  quite  certain  from  the  testimony  of  General  Grant 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  had  in  mind  a  scheme  for  the  organi- 
zation of  the  States  that  had  been  in  rebellion  and  that  Mr. 
Johnson's  proclamation  for  the  government  of  North  Caro- 
lina was  not  a  wide  departure  from  that  scheme. 

General  Grant  was  present  at  two  meetings  of  the  Cabinet 
in  Mr.  Lincoln's  time,  when  a  proclamation  was  read  and 
considered.     In  the  language  of  General  Grant,  "  after  the 


74  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

assassination  it  continued  right  along  and  I  was  there  with 
Mr.  Johnson."  General  Grant's  interest  was  directed  to 
two  points:  First,  that  civil  government  should  be  set  up 
but  subject  to  the  final  action  of  Congress,  and  second,  that 
the  parole  should  not  be  infringed.  He  states  his  position 
thus: 

"  I  was  always  ready  to  originate  matters  pertaining  to 
the  army,  but  I  was  never  willing  to  originate  matters  per- 
taining to  the  civil  government  of  the  United  States.  When 
I  was  asked  my  opinion  about  what  had  been  done  I  was 
willing  to  give  it.  I  originated  no  plans  and  suggested 
no  plans  for  civil  government." 

The  examination  by  Mr.  Eldridge  was  in  the  nature  of 
cross-examination  and  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  an  ad- 
mission from  General  Grant  that  he  had  advised  or  sanc- 
tioned President  Johnson's  plan  of  reconstruction.  Hence 
General  Grant's  declarations  that  his  part  was  limited  to 
the  military  side  of  the  measure  and  that  in  his  view  the 
entire  plan  was  subject  to  Congressional  action. 

General  Grant's  testimony  is  explicit  upon  these  points : 
He  advised  President  Johnson  to  grant  a  pardon  to  General 
Lee  and  a  pardon  to  General  Johnston.  He  was  especially 
urgent  in  favor  of  a  pardon  to  General  Johnston  in  con- 
sideration of  his  speech  to  his  army  at  the  time  of  the  sur- 
render. He  advised  against  the  proclamation  of  amnesty 
upon  the  ground  that  the  act  was  then  premature. 

General  Grant's  testimony  adds  strength  to  the  state- 
ment that  President  Johnson  contemplated  the  recognition 
of  a  Congress  composed  of  Democratic  members  from  the 
North  and  of  the  representatives  from  the  States  that  had 
been  organized  under  the  President's  proclamations. 

"  I  have  heard  him  say — and  I  think  I  have  heard  him 
say  it  twice  in  his  speeches — that  if  the  North  carried  the 
election  by  members  enough  to  give  them,  with  the  Southern 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  75 

members,  a  majority  why  would  they  not  be  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States?" 

In  answer  to  this  question :  "  Have  you  heard  him  make 
a  remark  kindred  to  that  elsewhere?  "  General  Grant  said : 

"  Yes,  I  have  heard  him  say  that  aside  from  his  speeches, 
in  conversation.     I  cannot  say  just  when." 

The  North  Carolina  proclamation  was  read  at  an  in- 
formal meeting  at  which  only  Grant  and  Stanton  were  with 
the  President.  General  Grant  did  not  criticise  the  paper. 
He  said  of  it :  "  It  was  a  civil  matter  and  although  I  was 
anxious  to  have  something  done  I  did  not  intend  to  dictate 
any  plan.  I  looked  upon  it  simply  as  a  temporary  measure 
to  establish  a  sort  of  government  until  Congress  should 
meet  and  settle  the  whole  question  and  that  it  did  not  make 
much  difference  how  it  was  done  so  there  was  a  form  of 
government  there.  ...  I  don't  suppose  that  there  were  any 
persons  engaged  in  that  consultation  who  thought  of  what 
was  being  done  at  that  time  as  being  lasting — any  longer 
than  Congress  would  meet  and  either  ratify  that  or  establish 
some  other  form  of  government." 

General  Grant  understood  that  the  North  Carolina  proc- 
lamation was  in  substance  the  paper  which  had  been  con- 
sidered by  Mr.  Lincoln,  but  General  Grant  said  also,  that 
Mr.  Lincoln's  plan  was  "  temporary,  to  be  either  confirmed, 
or  a  new  government  set  up  by  Congress." 

General  Grant's  testimony  upon  one  point  is  supported 
by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Seward  and  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Stanton.  They  agree  that  Mr.  Johnson's  plan  of  recon- 
struction was  in  substance  the  plan  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  had 
under  consideration.  Mr.  Stanton  regarded  the  plan  as 
temporary. 

If  President  Johnson  intended  to  enforce  the  plan  upon 
the  country  he  concealed  his  purpose  when  the  North  Caro- 
lina proclamation  was  under  consideration. 


76  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

In  the  month  of  October,  1866,  the  police  commissioners 
of  the  city  of  Baltimore  were  engaged  in  the  work  of  regis- 
tering voters  for  the  November  elections,  and  the  authori- 
ties were  engaged  in  the  work  of  registering  the  voters  in 
all  parts  of  the  State  of  Maryland.  It  was  claimed  that 
many  thousands  who  had  been  engaged  in  the  rebellion  and 
who  were  excluded  under  a  provision  of  the  Constitution  had 
been  registered  by  the  connivance  of  the  authorities  and 
especially  by  the  police  commissioners  of  Baltimore.  There 
were  rumors  of  secret,  hostile  organizations,  there  were 
threats  of  disturbances,  and  Governor  Swann  became  alarmed. 

President  Johnson  became  alarmed  also  and  under  date 
of  October  25  he  wrote  a  letter  to  General  Grant  in  which 
these  paragraphs  may  be  found : 

"  From  recent  developments  serious  troubles  are  appre- 
hended from  a  conflict  of  authority  between  the  executive  of 
the  State  of  Maryland  and  the  police  commissioners  of  the 
city  of  Baltimore."  .  .  .  "I  therefore  request  that 
you  inform  me  of  the  number  of  Federal  troops  at  present 
stationed  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  or  vicinity." 

General  Grant  informed  the  President  on  the  27th,  that 
the  numbe*-  of  available  and  efficient  troops  was  1,550. 
Thereupon,  on  the  first  day  of  November  the  President 
issued  the  following  instruction  to  Secretary  Stanton : 

"  In  view  of  the  prevalence  in  various  portions  of  the 
country  of  a  revolutionary  and  turbulent  disposition  which 
might  at  any  moment  assume  insurrectionary  proportions 
and  lead  to  serious  disorders,  and  of  the  duty  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  be  at  all  times  prepared  to  act  with  decision  and 
effect  this  force  is  not  deemed  adequate  for  the  protection 
and  security  of  the  seat  of  government." 

Secretary  Stanton  referred  the  President's  letter  to  Gen- 
eral Grant  with  instructions  "  to  take  such  measures  as  in 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  77 

his  judgment  are  proper  and  within  his  power  to  carry  into 
operation   the   within   directions  of  the   President." 

Under  this  order  six  or  eight  companies  in  New  York  and 
on  the  way  to  join  regiments  in  the  South  were  detained 
at  Fort  McHenry,  and  a  regiment  in  Washington  was  under 
orders  to  be  ready  to  move  upon  notice. 

On  the  second  day  of  November  the  President  quahfied  his 
demands  in  a  letter  to  Secretary  Stanton  and  Hmited  the 
expression  of  anxiety  to  the  city  of  Baltimore.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  General  Grant  and  Secretary  Stanton  did  not 
share  the  President's  apprehensions,  and  the  day  of  election 
passed  without  serious  disturbance. 

In  the  Philadelphia  Ledger  of  October  12,  1866,  there 
appeared  a  series  of  questions  which  were  accompanied  by 
the  statement  or  the  suggestion  that  the  President  had  sub- 
mitted them  to  the  Attorney-General  for  an  official  opinion. 
The  questions  related  to  the  constitutional  validity  of  the 
Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  upon  the  ground  that  all  the 
States  were  not  represented  although  hostilities  had  ceased. 

From  the  testimony  of  Henry  M.  Flint,  a  newspaper 
correspondent,  it  appears  that  the  President  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  questions  until  the  publications  in  the  Ledger. 
Flint's  account  of  the  affair  may  be  thus  summarized.  For 
himself  and  without  conference  with  the  President,  he 
reached  the  conclusion  that  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  was 
an  illegal  body  and  he  had  reached  the  conclusion  also  that 
the  President  entertained  the  same  opinion.  Thereupon  he 
assumed  that  the  President  would  take  the  opinion  of  the 
Attorney-General.  Having  advanced  thus  far,  he  next  pro- 
ceeded to  write  the  questions  that  he  imagined  the  President 
would  prepare  and  submit  to  the  Attorney-General. 

These  questions  he  transmitted  to  a  brother  correspondent 
in  New  York — Mr.  F.  A.  Abbott — under  cover  of  a  letter 


78  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

which  was  not  produced.     Flint  gave  the  substance  of  his 
letter  to  Abbott  in  these  words : 

"  These  questions  are  supposed  or  believed  to  have  been 
submitted  by  the  President  to  the  Attorney-General." 
Speaking  of  Abbott,  Flint  said :  "  I  knew  he  was  connected 
with  several  newspapers  and  I  had  no  doubt  when  I  sent 
these  questions  that  they  would  appear  in  some  paper  in 
some  shape.  .  .  .  The  object  I  had  in  view  in  writing 
these  questions  and  in  sending  them  to  Mr.  Abbott  was  that 
they  might  appear  before  the  public,  and  that  the  public  mind 
might  be  directed  to  that  point,  and  that  the  newspapers 
particularly  might  be  led  to  express  their  sentiments  upon 
the  questions  involved  in  it." 

When  the  publication  "  had  given  rise  to  considerable  dis- 
cussion "  in  the  language  of  Flint,  *'  I  thought,"  he  says,  '*  I 
ought  to  go  to  the  President  and  tell  him  what  part  of  the 
despatch  was  mine  and  what  connection  I  had  had  with  the 
publication  of  it." 

Of  his  interview  w'ith  the  President,  he  gives  this  report: 
"  He  showed  me  an  article,  which  I  think,  appeared  the 
day  after  the  questions  were  published,  in  the  Daily  News 
of  Philadelphia,  which  took  pretty  nearly  the  same  ground 
my  questions  would  indicate.  .  .  .  He  spoke  of  it 
rather  approvingly." 

Flint  adds :  "  I  had  remarked  to  him :  '  Mr.  Johnson,  it 
seemed  to  me  that  it  would  be  by  no  means  remarkable 
that  you  should  prepare  such  questions  as  bear  upon  a  sub- 
ject which  I  know  must  have  occupied  your  mind  as  it  has 
the  public  mind.'  I  forget  what  reply  he  made;  it  was  a 
sort  of  affirmative  response  or  assent." 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  origin  of  Flint's  questions 
their  appearance  in  the  manner  indicated  is  an  instance  of 
volunteer  service  not  often  paralleled  in  the  rough  contests 
of  life.     Without  any  effort  on  his  own  part  the  President 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  79 

gained  knowledge  of  a  public  sentiment  upon  the  question 
of  the  legality  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress — a  question  in 
which  he  had  much  interest  in  the  autumn  of  1866. 

The  project  to  increase  the  army  around  Washington  and 
the  project  to  proclaim  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  an  illegal 
body  may  have  had  an  intimate  connection  with  the  project 
to  send  General  Grant  on  a  mission  to  Mexico  and  to  place 
General  Sherman  in  command  at  Washington,  a  project  of 
which  I  have  spoken  in  another  place. 

GENERAL    ROBERT    E.    LEE 

General  Robert  E.  Lee  was  examined  by  the  Committee 
on  Reconstruction  the  17th  day  of  February,  1866. 

The  inquiries  related  to  the  state  of  public  sentiment  in 
the  South,  and  especially  in  Virginia  in  regard  to  secession, 
to  the  treatment  of  the  negroes,  to  the  public  debts  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  Confederacy,  and  to  the  treatment 
of  Northern  soldiers  in  Southern  prisons. 

General  Lee  was  then  in  good  health  and  in  personal  ap- 
pearance he  commended  himself  without  delay.  He  was 
large  in  frame,  compactly  built,  and  he  was  furnished  with 
all  the  flesh  and  muscle  that  could  be  useful  to  a  man  who 
was  passing  the  middle  period  of  life.  The  elasticity  of 
spirits,  the  vigor  of  mind  and  body  that  are  the  wealth  of  a 
successful  man  at  sixty  were  wanting  in  General  Lee.  His 
appearance  commanded  respect  and  it  excited  the  sympathy 
even  of  those  who  had  condemned  his  abandonment  of  the 
Union  in  186 1. 

The  examination  gave  evidence  of  integrity  and  of  entire 
freedom  from  duplicity.  Freedom  from  duplicity  was  a 
controlling  feature  in  General  Grant's  character  and  in  that 
attribute  of  greatness  Grant  and  Lee  may  have  been  equals. 

General  Lee  was  free  to  disclose  his  own  opinions,  but  he 
was  cautious  in  his  statements  when  questioned  as  to  the 


8o  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

opinions  and  purposes  of  the  men  and  States  that  had  been 
in  the  Rebelhon.  He  was  careful  to  say  at  the  beginning 
of  the  examination  that  he  had  no  communication  with  poh- 
ticians  and  that  he  did  not  read  the  papers.  What  he  said 
of  the  South  assumed  that  the  people  were  in  poverty  and 
were  so  dejected  that  they  had  no  plans  for  the  future, 
nor  any  hopes  of  restoration  to  wealth,  happiness  and  power 
in  the  affairs  of  the  country.  His  testimony  as  a  whole 
might  justify  the  opinion  that  there  would  be  no  serious 
resistance  to  any  form  of  government  that  might  be  set 
up.  He  favored  the  governments  which  President  Johnson 
had  organized  and  he  expressed  the  opinion  that  they  were 
acceptable  to  the  people  generally.  A  comprehensive  state- 
ment was  this : 

"  I  do  not  know  of  a  single  person  who  either  feels  or 
contemplates  any  resistance  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  or,  indeed  any  opposition  to  it."  He  gave  this  as- 
surance to  the  committee :  "  The  people  entirely  acquiesce 
in  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  are  for  co-operat- 
ing with  President  Johnson  in  his  policy." 

The  payment  of  the  public  debt  had  not  been  a  topic  of 
discussion  in  his  presence,  but  the  people  were  disposed  to 
pay  such  taxes  as  were  imposed  and  they  were  struggling 
to  get  money  for  that  purpose. 

He  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  people  made  no  distinc- 
tion between  the  Confederate  debt  and  the  debt  of  the  United 
States — that  they  were  disposed  to  pay  both  debts,  and 
would  pay  both  if  they  had  the  power.  For  himself,  how- 
ever, he  had  no  expectation  that  the  indebtedness  of  the 
Confederacy  would  ever  be  paid. 

General  Lee  manifested  a  kindly  spirit  for  the  freedmen, 
but  he  was  unwilling  to  accept  them  as  citizens  endowed 
with  the  right  of  suffrage.  Of  the  feeling  in  Virginia,  Gen- 
eral Lee  said :   "  Every  one  with  whom  I  associate  expresses 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  8i 

kind  feelings  toward  the  freedmen.  They  wish  to  see  them 
get  on  in  the  world,  and  especially  to  take  up  some  occupa- 
tion for  a  living." 

He  rejected  the  suggestion  that  there  was  anywhere  within 
the  State  any  combinations  having  in  view,  "  the  disturb- 
ance of  the  peace,  or  any  improper  or  unlawful  acts."  He 
characterized  the  negroes  as  "an  amiable,  social  race,  who 
look  more  to  their  present  than  to  their  future  condition." 

In  answer  to  the  question  whether  the  South  would  sup- 
port the  government  in  case  of  war  with  France  or  England, 
General  Lee  was  distinctly  reserved :  "I  cannot  speak  with 
any  certainty  on  that  point.  I  do  not  know  how  far  they 
might  be  actuated  by  their  feelings.  I  have  nothing  what- 
ever to  base  an  opinion  upon.  So  far  as  I  know  they  con- 
template nothing  of  the  kind  now.  What  may  happen  in 
the  future  I  cannot  say."  He  then  added  this  remark: 
"  Those  people  in  Virginia  with  whom  I  associate  express 
a  hope  that  the  country  may  not  be  led  into  war." 

In  answer  to  the  question  whether  in  case  of  war  some 
of  the  class  known  as  secessionists  might  join  the  enemy, 
he  said :  "  It  is  possible.  It  depends  upon  the  feelings  of 
the  individual."  As  to  joining  the  enemy  in  case  of  war, 
he  said,  speaking  for  himself :  "  I  have  no  disposition  now 
to  do  it,  and  I  never  have  had." 

As  to  an  alliance  during  the  war  he  said  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  the  policy  of  the  Confederate  government :  "  I 
had  no  hand  or  part  in  it,"  was  his  remark.  It  was  his 
opinion  during  the  war  that  an  alliance  with  a  foreign  country 
was  desirable,  and  he  had  assumed  that  the  authorities  were 
of  the  same  opinion.  His  ideas  were  those  of  General  Grant, 
and  he  avoided  responsibility  for  the  measures  of  government 
on  the  civil  side. 

With  kind  feelings  for  the  colored  people  of  Virginia 
General  Lee  favored  the  substitution  of  a  white  class  of 


82  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

laborers,  if  an  exchange  could  be  made,  of  which  however, 
he  had  neither  plan  nor  hope.  Nor  could  he  give  any  as- 
surance that  Northern  men  would  be  received  upon  terms 
of  equality  and  friendship,  if  they  avowed  the  opinions  that 
then  prevailed  generally  in  the  North :  "  The  manner  in 
which  they  would  be  received  would  depend  entirely  upon 
the  individuals  themselves — they  might  make  themselves 
obnoxious,  as  you  can  understand,"  was  the  statement  of 
General  Lee.  His  testimony  as  a  whole  indicated  an  opinion 
that  it  was  more  important  to  secure  capital  for  business, 
than  it  was  to  rid  the  State  of  the  negro  laborer.  In  his 
opinion,  most  of  the  blacks  were  willing  to  work  for  their 
former  masters,  but  they  were  unwilling  to  make  engage- 
ments for  a  year,  a  form  of  engagement  which  the  farmers 
and  planters  preferred,  that  they  might  be  sure  of  help  when 
it  would  be  most  needed.  The  negroes  may  have  been  in- 
fluenced by  one  or  both  of  two  reasons.  Their  unthrifty 
habits — the  outcome  of  slavery — or  an  apprehension  that  a 
formal  engagement  for  a  year  w^as  a  kind  of  bondage  that 
might  lead  to  a  renewal  of  the  old  system. 

When  General  Lee  was  pressed  by  Senator  Howard  as  to 
the  feeling  in  the  South  in  regard  to  the  National  Govern- 
ment, he  said :  "  I  believe  that  they  will  perform  all  the 
duties  that  they  are  required  to  perform.  I  think  that  is 
the  general  feeling.  ...  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any 
deep-seated  dislike.  I  think  it  is  probable  that  there  may 
be  some  animosity  still  existing  among  some  of  the  people 
of  the  South.  .  .  .  They  were  disappointed  at  the 
result  of  the  war." 

General  Lee  was  of  the  opinion  that  a  Southern  jury 
would  not  find  an  accused  guilty  of  treason  for  participation 
in  the  war.  Indeed  his  doctrine  of  State  Rights  excused 
the  citizen  and  placed  the  sole  responsibility  on  the  State. 
Of  the  common  sentiment  in  the  South  he  said :  "  So  far  as  I 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  83 

know,  they  look  upon  the  action  of  the  State,  in  withdrawing 
itself  from  the  government  of  the  United  States,  as  carrying 
the  individuals  of  the  State  along  with  it;  that  the  State 
was  responsible  for  the  act,  not  the  individual."  This 
was  the  framework  of  his  own  defence.  Speaking  of 
the  advocates  of  secession,  he  said :  "  The  ordinance  of 
secession,  or  those  acts  of  a  State  which  recognized  a  con- 
dition of  war  between  the  State  and  the  General  Government, 
stood  as  their  justification  for  their  bearing  arms  against 
the  Government  of  the  United  States.  They  considered  the 
act  of  the  State  as  legitimate.  That  they  were  merely  using 
the  reserved  right,  which  they  had  a  right  to  do." 

From  these  views  General  Lee  was  led  to  a  specific  state- 
ment of  his  own  position : 

Question :  "  State,  if  you  please,  what  your  own  personal 
views  on  that  question  were  ?  " 

Answer :  "  That  was  my  view ;  that  the  act  of  Virginia 
in  withdrawing  herself  from  the  United  States  carried  me 
along  as  a  citizen  of  Virginia,  and  that  her  laws  and  her 
acts  were  binding  on  me." 

Question :     "  And  that  you  felt  to  be  your  justification 
in  taking  the  course  you  did  ?  " 
Answer :    "  Yes,  sir," 

In  the  course  of  the  examination  General  Lee  expressed 
the  opinion  that  the  "  trouble  was  brought  about  by  the 
politicians  of  the  country." 

General  Lee  disclaimed  all  responsibility  for  the  care 
and  treatment  of  prisoners  of  war.  He  had  always  favored  a 
free  exchange  of  prisoners,  knowing  that  proper  means  for 
the  care  and  comfort  of  prisoners  could  not  be  furnished 
in  the  Confederacy.  He  thought  that  the  hardships  and 
neglects  had  been  exaggerated.  As. to  himself,  he  had  never 
had  any  control  over  prisoners,  except  as  they  were  cap- 
tured on  the  field  of  battle.     He  sent  his  prisoners  to  Rich- 


84  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

mond  where  they  came  under  the  control  of  the  provost- 
marshal-general.  His  orders  to  surgeons  on  the  field  were  to 
treat  all  the  wounded  alike. 

In  the  examinations  that  were  made  by  the  committee  I 
read  a  large  number  of  reports  of  surgeons  connected  with 
the  prisons  and  hospitals  and  I  may  say  that  in  all  cases  they 
exhibited  humanity  and  in  many  cases  specific  means  of  relief 
for  the  sufferings  of  the  soldiers  were  recommended.  Their 
reports  were  forwarded  from  officer  to  officer,  but  in  a  large 
majority  of  cases  the  reports  were  neglected. 

In  a  letter  written  by  General  Lee  to  his  sister  a  few  days 
before  he  abandoned  the  service  of  the  United  States,  he 
expressed  the  opinion  that  there  was  no  sufficient  cause 
for  the  rebellion.  This  opinion,  in  connection  with  his 
opinion  that  the  rebellion  was  the  work  of  politicians  demon- 
strates the  power  which  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights  had 
obtained  over  a  man  of  experience  and  of  admitted  ability. 
Upon  his  own  admission,  he  subordinated  his  conduct  to 
the  action  of  his  State  and  in  disregard  of  his  personal 
obligation  through  his  oath  of  office.  If  he  had  followed 
his  own  judgment  as  to  what  was  wise  and  proper  he  would 
have  remained  in  his  place  as  an  officer  in  the  army  of  the 
United  States. 

If  in  1 86 1  an  officer  of  the  army  had  entertained  the 
opinion  that  the  North  was  in  the  wrong  and  that  the  South 
was  in  the  right,  it  could  be  claimed,  fairly,  that  that  officer 
might  forswear  his  obligations  to  the  old  Government  and 
accept  service  in  the  Confederacy. 

Moral  obliquity  is  not  to  be  assumed  in  the  case  of  Gen- 
eral Lee.  His  pecuniary  and  professional  interests  must 
have  invited  him  to  remain  in  the  army.  General  Scott, 
a  Virginian,  was  at  the  head  of  the  army,  and  General  Scott 
was  his  friend.  His  promotion  was  certain,  and  important 
commands  were  probable.    His  large  estates  in  the  vicinity  of 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  85 

the  city  of  Washington  were  exposed  to  the  ravages  of 
war  if  not  to  confiscation.  These  sacrifices,  some  certain, 
and  others  probable  were  present  when  he  left  Washington 
and  entered  into  the  service  of  the  Confederacy  under  the 
superior  authority  of  the  State  of  Virginia  in  disregard 
of  his  own  opinion,  and  in  disregard,  not  to  say  violation,  of 
his  oath  as  a  soldier  who  had  sworn  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  General  Lee  was  unable  to 
say  whether  he  had  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Confederate 
States.  He  could  not  recall  the  fact  of  taking  the  oath,  but 
he  said  he  should  have  taken  the  oath  if  it  had  been  tendered 
to  him. 

The  full  report  of  the  testimony  of  General  Lee  should 
appear  in  any  complete  biography  of  the  man.  It  reveals 
his  character,  explains  the  leading  influences  to  which  he 
was  subjected,  and  it  sheds  light  upon  the  state  of  public 
opinion  in  the  South  at  the  end  of  the  contest  in  arms. 

General  Scott  and  General  George  H.  Thomas  were  Virgin- 
ians, but  they  acted  in  defiance  of  the  State-Rights  doctrines 
of  the  South.  In  April,  1861,  General  Scott  gave  me  an 
account  of  the  efforts  that  had  been  made  to  induce  him  to 
follow  the  fortunes  of  Virginia,  and  he  spoke  with  a  voice 
of  emotion  of  his  veneration  for  the  flag,  and  of  his  attach- 
ment to  the  Union. 

GENERAL  GEORGE  H.  THOMAS 

Of  the  soldiers  of  the  Northern  army  in  the  war  of  the 
Rebellion,  General  George  H.  Thomas  takes  rank  next  after 
the  first  three — Grant,  Sherman  and  Sheridan.  When  Grant 
became  President  and  Sherman  was  general  of  the  army 
the  President  was  unwilling  to  appear  to  neglect  either 
Sheridan  or  Thomas.  With  high  appreciation  of  Thomas 
as  a  soldier,  the  President  gave  higher  rank  to  Sheridan. 
He  said  to  me  that  he  placed  Sheridan  above  every  other 


86  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

officer  of  the  war.  He  gave  Sheridan  credit  for  two  su- 
preme quahties — great  care  in  his  plans  and  great  vigor  in 
execution. 

Yet,  although  the  President  acted  upon  a  sound  basis  of 
opinion,  the  choice  left  a  painful  impression  upon  his 
memory. 

General  Thomas  and  General  Lee  were  alike  in  personal 
appearance,  and  they  resembled  each  other  in  their  mental 
characteristics.  In  one  important  particular  they  differed — 
General  Thomas  had  no  respect  for  State-Rights  doctrines. 
He  was  a  native  of  Virginia,  but  there  were  no  indications 
in  his  testimony,  nor  were  there  rumors,  that  he  had  ever 
hesitated  in  his  course  when  the  rebellion  opened. 

He  exhibited  a  peculiarity  not  uncommon  among  loyal 
men  in  the  South — a  disposition  to  deprive  those  who  had 
been  engaged  in  the  rebellion  of  the  right  of  suffrage. 

General  Thomas  was  examined  by  the  Committee  on  Re- 
construction January  29,  and  February  2,  1866.  He  was 
then  in  command  of  the  Military  Division  of  the  Tennessee 
which  included  the  States  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Georgia, 
Alabama  and  Mississippi.  It  was  the  main  object  of  the 
committee  to  obtain  information  as  to  the  public  sentiment 
touching  the  treatment  of  the  negroes  and  the  re-establish- 
ment of  civil  government  in  the  States  that  had  been  in 
rebellion.  The  Union  sentiment  was  stronger  in  Tennessee 
than  in  any  other  State  of  the  Confederacy.  The  inhabitants 
of  the  mountainous  districts  of  eastern  and  middle  Tennessee 
had  been  loyal  from  the  opening  of  the  contest  in  i860  and 
1 86 1.  Yet  in  1866  General  Thomas  advised  the  committee 
that  it  would  "  not  be  safe  to  remove  the  national  troops 
from  Tennessee,  or  to  withdraw  martial  law;  or  to  restore 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  its  full  extent."  At  that  time  the 
peace  of  eastern  Tennessee  was  disturbed  by  family  feuds 
and  personal  quarrels,  the  outcome  of  political  differences. 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  87 

In  west  Tennessee  and  in  portions  of  middle  Tennessee  there 
was  a  deep  seated  hostility  to  Union  men,  and  especially  to 
Southern  men  who  had  served  in  the  Union  army. 

General  Thomas  said  of  them :  "  They  are  more  unfriendly 
to  Union  men  natives  of  the  State  of  Tennessee  or  of  the 
South,  who  have  been  in  the  Union  army,  than  they  are  to 
men  of  Northern  birth." 

At  that  time  the  contract  system  of  labor  had  been  intro- 
duced, and  the  contracts  were  regarded  as  binding  both  by 
whites  and  blacks. 

General  Thomas  advised  the  admission  of  Tennessee  into 
the  Union  as  a  State,  and  his  advice  was  acted  upon  favor- 
ably by  its  admission  in  the  summer  of  that  year.  His  rec- 
ommendations were  based  upon  the  facts  that  Tennessee 
had  "  repudiated  the  rebel  debt,  had  abolished  slavery,  had 
adopted  the  Constitutional  amendment  upon  that  subject, 
had  passed  a  franchise  law  prohibiting  from  voting  every 
man  who  had  been  engaged  in  the  rebellion "  and  had 
"  passed  a  law  allowing  negroes  to  testify." 

His  opinion  of  the  four  other  States  of  his  command  was 
not  as  favorable.  "  I  have  received  communications  from 
various  persons  in  the  South  that  there  was  an  under- 
standing among  the  rebels  and  perhaps  organizations  formed 
or  forming,  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  as  many  advantages 
for  themselves  as  possible ;  and  I  have  heard  it  also  intimated 
that  these  men  are  very  anxious  and  would  do  all  in  their 
power  to  involve  the  United  States  in  a  foreign  war,  so  that 
if  a  favorable  opportunity  should  occur,  they  might  then 
again  turn  against  the  United  States." 

At  the  end  of  his  first  examination  he  gave  this  opinion 
as  the  result  of  his  experience: 

Question :  "  In  what  could  those  advantages  consist  in 
breaking  up  the  government?  " 

Answer :     "  They  would  wish  to  be  recognized  as  citizens 


88  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  the  United  States,  witli  the  same  rights  they  had  before 
the  war.  " 

Question:  "  How  can  they  do  that?  By  wishing  us  in  a 
war  with  England  or  France,  in  which  they  would  take 
part  against  us?  " 

Answer:  "In  that  event  their  desire  is  to  establish  the 
Southern  Confederacy.  They  have  not  yet  given  up  their 
desire  for  a  separate  government,  and  if  they  have  an  op- 
portunity to  strike  for  it  again  they  will  do  so." 

When  asked  what  he  knew  of  secret  organizations  he 
said  that  he  had  received  several  communications  to  that 
effect  but  the  parties  were  unwilling  to  have  their  names 
made  public.  He  added :  "  The  persons  communicating 
with  me  are  reliable  and  truthful  and  I  believe  their  state- 
ments are  correct  in  the  main. 

"  The  nature  and  object  of  the  organizations,"  he  said, 
"  are  the  embarrassment  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  the  proper  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  coun- 
try, and  if  possible,  to  repudiate  the  national  debt,  or  to  gain 
such  an  ascendency  in  Congress  as  to  make  provision  for 
the  assumption  by  Congress  of  the  debt  incurred  by  the  rebel 
government ;  also,  in  case  the  United  States  Government  can 
be  involved  in  foreign  war  to  watch  their  opportunity  and 
take  advantage  of  the  first  that  comes  to  strike  for  the  in- 
dependence of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion." 

These  extracts  from  the  testimony  of  General  Thomas 
are  a  fair  exposition  of  the  condition  of  public  sentiment 
in  the  Confederate  States  with  the  exception  in  a  degree 
of  the  border  States.  It  is  apparent  also  that  General 
Thomas  had  not  the  degree  of  confidence  in  the  good  pur- 
poses of  those  who  had  been  in  the  rebellion  that  was  en- 
tertained by  Northern  officers  including  Grant,  Sherman, 
and  Sheridan. 

As  the  loyal  men  of  the   South   were  greater   sufferers 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  89 

from  the  war,  their  hostility  was  more  intense  against  those 
who  were  responsible  for  the  war. 

If  we  cannot  say  that  Thomas  was  a  great  soldier  in  the 
large  use  of  the  phrase,  it  can  be  said  that  he  was  a  good 
soldier  and  that  without  qualifying  words.  He  should  live 
in  history  as  a  true  patriot  and  a  man  of  the  highest 
integrity. 

SECRETARY  STANTON 

Of  the  men  who  occupied  places  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  Cabinet, 
no  one  was  more  free  from  just  criticism  affecting  unfavor- 
ably the  value  of  his  public  services  than  Secretary  Stanton. 

Of  those  who  were  nearest  to  him,  no  one  ever  received 
the  impression  from  his  acts  or  his  conversation  that  he 
thought  of  the  Presidency  as  a  possibility  under  any  circum- 
stances. Seward,  Chase  and  Bates  had  been  candidates  at 
Chicago  in  i860,  and  whatever  may  have  been  the  fact  in 
regard  to  Seward  and  Bates,  it  is  quite  certain  that  ambition 
for  the  Presidency  never  lost  its  hold  upon  Mr.  Chase,  even 
when  he  became  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States. 

Coupled  with  the  absence  of  ambition,  or  perhaps  in  a 
degree  incident  to  the  absence  of  ambition,  Mr.  Stanton  was 
the  possessor  of  courage  for  all  the  emergencies  of  the  place 
that  he  occupied — a  courage  that  was  always  available, 
whether  in  its  exercise  the  wishes  of  individuals  or  the  for- 
tunes of  the  country  were  involved. 

It  was  understood  by  those  who  frequented  the  War  Office 
in  the  gloomy  days  of  1862  and  '63  that  a  card  signed  "  A.  L.'' 
would  not  always  command  full  respect  from  Secretary  Stan- 
ton. He  was  a  believer  in  the  rigid  principles  of  the  army, 
and  although  he  was  a  humane  man  he  smothered  or  sub- 
dued his  sympathy  for  heart-broken  mothers  whose  sons  had 
deserted  the  cause  of  the  country,  in  his  determination  to 
save  the  country  through  the  strictest  enforcement  of  the 
rules   and   regulations   of  the   army.     Mr.    Lincoln,    in   his 


90  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

abounding  good  nature,  could  not  resist  the  appeals  of  dis- 
consolate wives  and  heart-stricken  mothers,  and  it  was  often 
Mr,  Stanton's  fortune  to  resist  such  appeals  even  when  sup- 
ported by  the  President's  card  in  the  form  of  a  request  which 
in  ordinary  times  and  upon  ordinary  men  would  be  treated 
as  an  order. 

Hence  there  may  have  been  a  foundation  for  the  report 
that  an  unsuccessful  user  of  one  of  the  President's  cards 
returned  to  the  President  for  a  reinforcement  of  the  order. 
The  President  insisted  upon  a  full  report  of  the  Secretary's 
answer.  The  applicant  repeated  the  Secretary's  remark, 
which  was  not  complimentary  to  the  President's  good  sense. 
The  President  hesitated,  and  then  declined  to  renew  the  order, 
saying:     "  Stanton  is  generally  right." 

Mr.  Stanton's  testimony  was  taken  February  ii,  1867,  and 
on  subsequent  days.  The  record  of  the  text  and  the  ac- 
companying documents  cover  more  than  two  hundred  printed 
pages.  The  evidence  was  taken  by  the  Committee  on  the  Ju- 
diciary, and  it  had  special  reference  to  the  charges  that  had 
been  made  against  President  Johnson.  At  that  time,  the 
separation  between  Mr.  Stanton  and  the  President  had  be- 
come irreconcilable,  but  there  are  no  indications  of  hostility 
in  the  answers  given  by  the  Secretary.  Indeed,  he  assumed, 
without  reserve,  full  responsibility  for  acts  that  had  been 
charged  on  the  President  by  others. 

During  the  war  the  railroads  that  fell  within  our  lines 
were  appropriated  to  the  use  of  the  United  States,  and  heavy 
outlays  had  been  made  upon  some  of  them  for  repairs  and 
improvements.  In  many  cases  expenses  had  been  incurred, 
that  in  the  hands  of  the  corporation  would  not  have  been 
chargeable  to  a  construction  account.  In  a  majority  of  cases, 
if  not  in  all,  the  roads  had  been  surrendered  without  compen- 
sation, and  the  rolling  stock  had  been  transferred  for  very 
slight  consideration. 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  91 

Mr.  Stanton  assumed  the  responsibility  of  the  policy, 
upon  the  ground  that  it  was  important  to  the  South  and 
to  the  country  that  the  channels  of  commerce  should  be  made 
available  without  delay  and  that  the  army  could  not  be  used 
wisely  in  commercial  traffic.  As  the  President  was  interested 
in  one  of  the  railroads  that  received  a  large  benefit  by  the  res- 
toration of  its  property  much  improved,  he  was  relieved  of 
all  responsibility  for  a  policy  that  had  been  much  condemned. 

Through  the  testimony  of  Secretary  Stanton  the  committee 
was  enabled  to  find  the  origin  and  to  trace  with  a  degree  of 
accuracy  the  history  of  President  Johnson's  plan  of  recon- 
struction. At  a  time  not  many  days  prior  to  Mr.  Lincoln's 
death,  Secretary  Stanton  prepared  an  order  which  contained  a 
projet  for  the  government  of  the  States  that  had  been  in 
rebellion.  The  paper  was  submitted  to  President  Lincoln 
and  it  was  considered  by  him  in  a  cabinet  meeting  that  was 
held  during  the  day  preceding  the  night  of  the  assassination. 

As  this  paper  became  the  basis  for  the  proclamations  for 
the  government  of  the  States  that  had  been  in  rebellion,  its 
history,  as  given  by  Mr.  Stanton,  is  worthy  of  exact  report 
in  his  own  words : 

"  On  the  last  day  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  life,  there  was  a  Cabinet 
meeting,  at  which  General  Grant,  and  all  the  members  of 
the  Cabinet,  except  Mr.  Seward,  were  present.  General 
Grant  at  that  time  made  a  report  of  the  condition  of  the 
country,  as  he  conceived  it  to  be,  and  as  it  would  be  on  the 
surrender  of  Johnston's  army,  which  was  regarded  as  abso- 
lutely certain.  The  subject  of  reconstruction  was  talked  of 
at  considerable  length.  Shortly  previous  to  that  time  I  had 
myself,  with  a  view  of  putting  into  a  practicable  form  the 
means  of  overcoming  what  seemed  to  be  a  difficulty  in  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  as  to  the  mode  of  reconstruction,  pre- 
pared a  rough  draft  of  a  form  or  mode  by  which  the  authority 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  should  be  re-established,  and 


92  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

governments  reorganized  in  the  rebel  States  under  the  Fed- 
eral authority,  without  any  necessity  whatever  for  the  inter- 
vention of  rebel  organizations  or  rebel  aid. 

In  the  course  of  that  consultation  Mr.  Lincoln  alluded  to 
the  paper,  went  into  his  room,  brought  it  out,  and  asked  me 
to  read  it,  which  I  did,  and  explained  my  ideas  in  regard 
to  it.  There  was  one  point  which  I  had  left  open ;  that  was 
as  to  who  should  constitute  the  electors  in  the  respective 
States  ...  I  left  a  blank  upon  that  subject  to  be 
considered.  There  was  at  that  time  nothing  adopted  about 
it,  and  no  opinions  expressed ;   it  was  only  a  pro  jet. 

At  the  request  of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Cabinet,  the  order 
was  printed  and  a  copy  was  given  to  each  member,  and  a 
copy  was  given  to  Mr.  Johnson  when  he  had  become 
President. 

The  plan  was  further  considered  in  Mr.  Johnson's  Cabinet, 
and  some  alterations  were  made.  The  point  of  chief  differ- 
ence related  to  the  elective  franchise — whether  it  should  be 
extended  to  the  negro  race. 

Mr.  Stanton  said :  "  There  was  a  difference  of  opinion 
upon  that  subject.  The  President  expressed  his  views  very 
clearly  and  distinctly.  I  expressed  my  views,  and  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Cabinet  expressed  their  views.  The  objections 
of  the  President  to  throwing  the  franchise  open  to  the  col- 
ored people  appeared  to  be  fixed,  and  I  think  every  member 
of  the  Cabinet  assented  to  the  arrangement  as  it  was  specified 
in  the  proclamation  relative  to  North  Carolina.  After  that 
I  do  not  remember  that  the  subject  was  ever  again  discussed 
in  the  Cabinet." 

Thus  from  Mr.  Stanton's  testimony  w^e  gather  the  impor- 
tant facts  as  to  the  origin  of  a  measure  which  became  the  sub- 
ject of  bitter  controversy  between  President  Johnson  and  the 
Republican  Party.  The  framework  of  the  North  Carolina 
proclamation  was  furnished  by  Mr.  Stanton.     When  alter- 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  93 

ations  had  been  made  the  proclamation  was  agreed  to  by  the 
Cabinet  but  without  a  declaration  or  even  an  understanding 
upon  the  point  which,  without  much  delay,  became  the  vital 
point :  was  the  policy  of  government  that  was  announced  in 
the  proclamation  a  permanent  policy  or  was  it  a  temporary 
expedient,  a  substitute  for  military  government,  and  subject 
to  the  approval  or  disapproval  of  Congress  ? 

General  Grant  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  organizations 
which  the  President  set  up  in  the  States  were  temporary 
and  that  they  were  subject  to  the  action  of  Congress. 

Mr.  Stanton's  opinion  is  expressed  carefully,  in  his  own 
words :  "  My  opinion  is,  that  the  whole  subject  of  recon- 
struction and  the  relation  of  the  State  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment is  subject  to  the  controlling  power  of  Congress;  and 
while  I  believe  that  the  President  and  his  Cabinet  were 
not  violating  any  law,  but  were  faithfully  performing  their 
duty  in  endeavoring  to  organize  provisional  governments 
in  those  States,  I  supposed  then,  and  still  suppose,  that  the 
final  validity  of  such  organizations  would  rest  with  the  law- 
making power  of  the  government." 

In  an  official  letter,  dated  January  8,  1866,  Secretary  Stan- 
ton gave  his  reasons  for  the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  the 
provisional  governors :  "  The  payments  were  made  from 
the  appropriation  of  army  contingencies  because  the  duties  / 
performed  by  the  parties  were  regarded  of  a  temporary 
character  ancillary  to  the  withdrawal  of  military  force,  and 
to  take  the  place  of  the  armed  forces  in  the  respective  States." 

On  the  other  hand  the  President  chose  to  treat  the  govern-       / 
ments  that  had  been  set  up  as  permanent  governments  and 
beyond  the  control  of  Congress.     On  this  poin^:,  the  contest 
between  President  Johnson  and  the  Republican  Party  was       ; 
made  up.    It  ended  in  an  appeal  to  the  people,  who  rendered       " 
a  judgment  against  the  President  by  a  two-thirds  majority. 
The  testimony  of  Secretary  Seward,  and  official  papers  that 


94  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

were  issued  from  the  Department  of  State  in  the  year  1865, 
may  warrant  the  conclusion  that  President  Johnson  was  not 
then  prepared  to  treat  the  new  state  organizations  as  final 
and  binding  upon  Congress  and  the  country. 

Under  date  of  July  8,  1865,  Secretary  Seward  said,  in  an 
official  letter  to  Governor  Holden  of  North  Carolina :  "  It  is 
understood  here  that  besides  cotton  which  has  been  taken  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  Act  of  Congress  there 
were  quantities  of  resin,  and  other  articles,  as  well  as  funds, 
lying  about  in  different  places  in  the  State  and  not  reduced 
into  possession  by  United  States  officers  as  insurgent  prop- 
erty. The  President  is  of  opinion  that  you  can  appropriate 
these  for  the  inevitable  and  indispensable  expenses  of  the  civil 
government  of  the  State  during  the  continuance  of  the  pro- 
visional government." 

On  the  14th  day  of  November,  1865,  Mr.  McCulloch 
authorized  Mr.  Worth,  acting  as  treasurer  in  North  Carolina, 
to  use  the  fragments  of  rebel  property  that  might  be  gath- 
ered to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  provisional  government 
of  the  State. 

In  answer  to  a  question  put  to  Secretary  Seward,  he  said : 
"  I  do  not  remember  that  any  provisional  governor  held  a 
military  office,  except  Mr.  Johnson." 

In  the  further  examination  of  Mr.  Seward,  May  16,  1867, 
he  indicated  his  concurrence  with  President  Johnson  in  this 
remark :  "  The  object  was  to  proceed  with  the  work  of  the 
restoration  of  the  Union  as  speedily  and  effectively  and 
wisely  as  possible,  having  no  reference  as  to  whether  Con- 
gress would  be  in  session  or  not." 

This  question  was  put  to  Mr.  Seward : 

"  Did  not  he  (the  President)  urge  these  parties  to  be  pre- 
pared to  be  at  the  doors  of  Congress  by  the  time  of  its  next 
meeting?  " 

The  answer  was :   "  Very  likely  he  did.     I  do  not  know  of 


INVESTIGATIONS  FOLLOWING  THE  CIVIL  WAR  95 

the  fact.  I  know  that  I  was  very  anxious  that  these  States 
should  be  represented  in  Congress,  and  that  he  was  equally 
so,  that  they  should  be  provided  with  representatives  who 
could  be  admitted." 

The  policy  of  the  administration,  July  24,  1865,  is  set 
forth  in  a  despatch  from  Secretary  Seward  to  Governor 
Sharkey,  of  Mississippi  (he  is  addressed  as  Provisional  Gov- 
ernor) :  "  The  President  sees  no  occasion  to  interfere  with 
General  Slocum's  proceedings.  The  government  of  the  State 
will  be  provisional  only  until  the  civil  authorities  shall  be 
restored  with  the  approval  of  Congress." 

Upon  the  united  testimony  of  General  Grant,  Secretary 
Stanton  and  Secretary  Seward,  it  may  be  claimed  fairly  that 
the  governments  that  were  set  up  under  proclamations  of  the 
President  were  treated  in  the  beginning  as  provisional  govern- 
ments and  subject  to  the  final  judgment  of  Congress. 

In  1866,  when  the  rupture  between  Congress  and  the  Presi- 
dent had  taken  form,  the  President  with  the  support  of  Mr. 
Seward  announced  the  doctrine  that  the  governments  which 
had  been  set  up  were  valid  governments,  and  that  claimants 
for  seats  in  Congress  from  those  who  could  prove  their  loyalty 
were  entitled  to  admission. 

Thus  was  a  foundation  laid  for  the  impeachment  of  Presi- 
dent Johnson  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  his  trial 
by  the  Senate. 


XXXII 

IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON 

THE  nomination  of  Andrew  Johnson  to  the  Vice- 
Presidency  in  1864,  by  the  RepubHcan  Party,  was  a 
repetition  of  the  error  committed  by  the  Whig  Party 
in  1840,  in  the  nomination  of  John  Tyler  for  the  same  office. 

In  each  case  the  nomination  was  due  to  an  attempt  to 
secure  the  support  of  a  body  of  men  who  were  not  in  accord 
in  all  essential  particulars  with  the  party  making  the 
nomination. 

John  Tyler  was  opposed  to  the  administration  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  but  he  was  opposed  also  to  a  national  bank,  which 
was  then  an  accepted  idea  and  an  assured  public  policy  of 
the  Whig  Party.  Hence,  it  happened  that  when  Mr.  Tyler 
came  to  the  Presidency,  he  resisted  the  attempt  of  Congress 
to  establish  a  national  bank,  and  by  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
power,  on  two  occasions,  he  defeated  the  measure.  This 
controversy  caused  the  overthrow  of  the  Whig  Party,  and 
it  ended  the  contest  in  behalf  of  a  United  States  bank. 

In  the  case  of  John  Tyler  and  in  the  case  of  Andrew 

Johnson  there  was  an  application,  in  dangerous  excess,  of 

a   policy  that  prevails   in  all   national   conventions.      When 

the  nomination  of  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  has  been 

secured,  the  dominant  wing  of  the  party  turns  to  the  minority 

with  a  tender  of  the  Vice-Presidency.     In   1880,  when  the 

nomination  of  General  Garfield  had  been  made,  the  selection 

of  a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  was  tendered  to  the 

supporters  of  General  Grant,  and  it  was  declined  by  more 

than  one  person. 

96 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON        97 

Mr.  Johnson  never  identified  himself  with  the  Republican 
Party;  and  neither  in  June,  1864,  nor  at  any  other  period 
of  his  life,  had  the  Republican  Party  a  right  to  treat  him  as  an 
associate  member.  He  was,  in  fact,  what  he  often  proclaimed 
himself  to  be — a  Jacksonian  Democrat.  He  was  a  Southern 
Union  Democrat.  He  was  an  opponent,  and  a  bitter  op- 
ponent, of  the  project  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and 
a  vindictive  enemy  of  those  who  threatened  its  destruction. 

His  speeches  in  the  Senate  in  the  Thirty-sixth  and  the 
Thirty-seventh  Congress  were  read  and  much  approved 
throughout  the  North,  and  they  prepared  the  way  for  the 
acceptance  of  his  nomination  as  a  candidate  of  the  Republi- 
can Party  in  1864. 

Mr.  Johnson  was  an  earnest  supporter  of  the  Crittenden 
Compromise.  That  measure  originated  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. It  was  defeated  in  the  Senate  by  seven  votes 
and  six  votes  of  the  seven  came  from  the  South.  The 
provisions  of  the  bill  were  far  away  from  the  ideas  of  Re- 
publicans generally,  although  the  measure  was  sustained 
by  members  of  the  party.  By  that  scheme  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  was  made  less  offensive  in  two  particulars,  but  the 
United  States  was  to  pay  for  fugitives  from  slavery  when- 
ever a  marshal  failed  to  perform  his  duty.  As  an  important 
limitation  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  the  abolition  of  slav- 
ery in  the  District  of  Columbia  was  to  be  dependent  upon 
the  consent  of  the  States  of  Maryland  and  Virginia. 

Mr.  Johnson  gave  voice  to  his  indignation  when  he  spoke 
of  the  Southern  men  whose  votes  contributed  to  the  defeat 
of  the  Crittenden  Compromise.  "  Who,  then,"  said  he,  "  has 
brought  these  evils  upon  the  country?  Whose  fault  was  it? 
Who  is  responsible  for  it?  With  the  help  Ave  had  from  the 
other  side  of  the  chamber,  if  all  those  on  this  side  had  been 
true  to  the  Constitution  and  faithful  to  their  constitutents, 
and  had  acted  with  fidelity  to  the  country,  the  amendment 


98  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  could  have  been  voted 
down.  Whose  fault  was  it?  Who  did  it?  Southern  traitors, 
as  was  said  in  the  speech  of  the  Senator  from  California. 
They  did  it.     They  wanted  no  compromise." 

These  extracts  show  the  style  of  speech  in  which  Mr. 
Johnson  indulged,  and  they  prove  beyond  question  that  in 
the  winter  of  1861  he  had  no  sympathy  with  the  Republican 
Party  of  1856  and  i860.  These  facts  explain,  and  in  some 
measure  they  may  palliate,  the  peculiarities  of  his  career, 
which  provoked  criticism  and  an  adverse  popular  judgment 
when  he  came  to  the  Presidency.  Nor  is  there  evidence 
within  my  knowledge  that  he  ever  denied  the  right  of  se- 
cession. However  that  may  have  been,  he  disapproved  of 
the  exercise  of  the  right  at  all  stages  of  the  contest. 

In  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  Mr.  Johnson  proposed 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  which  gave  him  considera- 
tion in  the  North.  By  his  proposition  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  was  to  be  repealed,  and  in  its  place  the  respective 
States  were  to  return  fugitives  or  to  pay  the  value  of  those 
that  might  be  retained. 

Slavery  was  to  be  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
with  the  consent  of  Maryland  and  upon  payment  of  the 
full  value  of  the  slaves  emancipated.  The  Territories  were 
to  be  divided  between  freedom  and  slavery.  His  scheme 
contemplated  other  changes  not  connected  necessarily  with 
the  system  of  slavery.  Of  these  I  mention  the  election  of 
President,  Vice-President,  Senators,  and  Judges  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  by  the  people,  coupled  with  a  limitation  of  the 
terms  of  the  judges  to  twelve  years. 

The  Crittenden  Resolution  contained  these  declarations 
of  facts  and  policy : 

1.  The  present  deplorable  war  has  been  forced  upon  the 
country  by  the  disunionists  of  the  Southern  States. 

2.  Congress  has  no  purpose  of  conquest  or  subjugation. 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON         99 

nor  purpose  of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  estab- 
lished rights  of  those  States. 

Upon  a  motion  to  include  disunionists  of  the  North  under 
the  first  charge,  Mr.  Johnson  voted  in  the  negative  with 
Sumner,  Wilson,  Wade,  and  other  Republicans. 

This  brief  survey  of  Mr.  Johnson's  Congressional  career 
at  the  opening  of  the  war  may  indicate  the  characteristics 
of  his  mind  in  controversy  and  debate,  and  furnish  means 
for  comprehending  his  actions  in  the  troublous  period  of  his 
administration. 

Some  conclusions  are  deducible  from  this  survey.  First  of 
all  it  is  to  be  said  that  he  never  assumed  to  be  a  member  of 
the  Republican  Party.  Next,  I  do  not  find  evidence  which 
will  justify  the  statement  that  he  was  a  disbeliever  in  the 
right  of  a  State  to  secede  from  the  Union.  It  is  manifest 
that  he  was  not  an  advocate  of  the  doctrine  of  political 
equality  as  it  came  to  be  taught  by  the  leaders  of  the  Re- 
publican Party.  When  he  became  President,  he  was  an  op- 
ponent of  negro  suffrage. 

This  record,  though  not  concealed,  was  not  understood 
by  the  members  of  the  convention  that  placed  him  in  nomi- 
nation for  the  second  ofiice  in  the  country. 

This  analysis  prepares  the  way  for  an  extract  from  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Stanley  Matthews,  who  was  afterwards  a 
justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  who  was  examined  by 
the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
when  engaged  in  investigating  the  doings  of  the  President 
previous  to  his  impeachment.  Mr.  Johnson  was  appointed 
Military  Governor  of  Tennessee  the  third  day  of  March, 
1862.  Colonel  Matthews  was  provost-marshal  at  Nash- 
ville, where  Johnson  resided  during  his  term  as  Governor. 
In  that  term  Matthews  and  Johnson  became  acquainted. 
When  Johnson  was  on  his  way  to  Washington  to  take  the 
oath  of  office,  he  stopped  at  the  Burnet  House  in  Cincinnati. 


100  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

iMatthews  called  upon  him.  Matthews  had  been  a  Democrat 
until  the  troubles  in  Kansas.  In  the  conversation  at  the  Bur- 
net House  Mr.  Joimson  made  these  remarks,  after  some 
personal  matters  had  been  disposed  of.  I  quote  from  the 
testimony  of  Judge  Matthews: 

"  I  inquired  as  to  the  state  of  public  feeling  on  political 
matters  in  Tennessee  at  that  time.  He  remarked  that  very 
great  changes  had  taken  place  since  I  had  been  there,  that 
many  of  those  who  at  first  were  the  best  Union  men  had 
turned  to  be  the  worst  rebels,  and  that  many  of  those  who 
had  originally  been  the  worst  rebels  were  now  the  best 
Union  men.  I  expressed  surprise  and  regret  at  what  he  said 
in  reference  to  the  matter. 

"  We  were  sitting  near  each  other  on  the  sofa.  He  then 
turned  to  me  and  said,  *  You  and  I  were  old  Democrats.'  I 
said,  *  Yes.'  He  then  said,  '  I  will  tell  you  what  it  is,  if 
the  country  is  ever  to  be  saved,  it  is  to  be  done  through  the 
old  Democratic  Party.' 

"  I  do  not  know  whether  I  made  any  reply  to  that,  or,  if  I 
did,  w^hat  it  was;  and  immediately  afterwards  I  took  my 
leave." 

The  larger  part  of  this  quotation  is  only  important  as 
leading  up  to  the  phrase  that  is  emphasized,  and  which  may 
throw  light  upon  Mr.  Johnson's  policy  and  conduct  when 
he  came  to  the  Presidency. 

This  conversation  occurred  in  the  month  of  February, 
1865,  and  it  must  be  accepted  as  evidence,  quite  conclusive, 
that  Mr.  Johnson  was  then  opposed  to  the  policy  of  the  Re- 
publican Party,  whose  honors  he  had  accepted.  In  a  party 
sense  Mr.  Johnson  was  not  a  Republican :  he  was  a  Union 
Democrat.  He  was  opposed  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Union, 
but  not  necessarily  upon  the  ground  that  the  Union  had  a 
supreme  right  to  exist  in  defiance  of  what  is  called  "  State 
sovereignty."     This  with  the  Republican  Party  was  a  fun- 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON         loi 

damental  principle.  Under  the  influence  of  the  principles 
of  the  old  Democratic  Party  Mr.  Johnson  advanced  to  the 
Vice-Presidency,  and  while  under  the  influence  of  the  same 
idea  he  became  President. 

When  the  Republican  Party  came  to  power,  the  State  of 
Maryland,  that  portion  of  Virginia  now  known  as  West 
Virginia,  the  State  of  Kentucky,  and  the  State  of  Missouri 
were  largely  under  the  influence  of  sympathizers  with  the 
eleven  seceding  States  of  the  South.  It  was  necessary  in 
Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri  to  maintain  the  ascend- 
ency of  the  National  Government  by  the  exhibition  of  physi- 
cal force,  and  in  some  instances  by  its  actual  exercise.  Mr. 
Lincoln's  policy  in  regard  to  the  question  of  slavery  was 
controlled,  up  to  the  month  of  July,  1862,  by  the  purpose 
to  conciliate  Union  slave-holders  in  the  States  mentioned. 
Of  his  measures  I  may  refer  to  the  proposition  to  transfer  the 
free  negroes  to  Central  America,  for  which  an  appropriation 
of  $25,000  was  made  by  Congress.  Next,  Congress  passed 
an  act  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia upon  the  payment  of  three  hundred  dollars  for  each  slave 
emancipated. 

Without  representing  in  his  history  or  in  his  person  the 
slave-holding  iaterests  of  the  South,  Mr.  Johnson  was  yet 
a  Southern  man  with  Union  sentiments.  The  impression 
was  received  therefrom  that  his  influence  would  be  consid- 
erable in  restraining,  if  not  in  conciliating  slave-holders  in 
what  were  called  the  "  border  States."  These  facts  tended  to 
his  nomination  for  the  Vice-Presidency.  I  have  no  means 
for  forming  an  opinion  that  is  trustworthy  as  to  the  position 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  reference  to  the  nomination  of  Mr.  John- 
son. His  nomination  may  justify  the  impression  that  the 
Republican  Party  was  in  doubt  as  to  its  ability  to  re-elect  Mr. 
Lincoln  in  1864.  From  the  month  of  July,  1862,  to  the 
nomination   in   1864,   I  had   frequent  interviews  with   Mr. 


102  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Lincoln,  and  I  can  only  say  that,  during  the  period  when 
the  result  of  the  election  was  a  subject  of  thought,  he  gave 
no  intimation  in  the  conversations  that  I  had  with  him  that 
the  element  of  doubt  as  to  the  result  existed  in  his  mind. 

From  what  has  been  said,  the  inference  may  be  drawn 
thai  Mr.  Johnson  came  to  the  Vice-Presidency  in  the  absence 
of  any  considerable  degree  of  confidence  on  the  part  of  the 
Republican  Party,  although  there  were  no  manifestations 
of  serious  doubt  as  to  his  fitness  for  the  place,  or  as  to  his 
fidelity  to  the  principles  of  the  party. 

The  incidents  of  the  inauguration  of  Mr.  Johnson  in  the 
Senate  Chamber,  and  especially  his  speech  on  the  occasion, 
which  was  directed,  apparently,  to  the  diplomatic  corps,  ex- 
cited apprehensions  in  those  who  were  present,  and  the  con- 
fidence of  the  country  w^as  diminished  materially  concerning 
his  qualifications  for  the  office  to  which  he  had  been  elected. 
Without  delay  these  apprehensions  circulated  widely,  and 
they  were  deepened  in  the  public  mind  by  the  assassination 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  elevation  of  Mr.  Johnson  to  the 
Presidency. 

The  public  confidence  received  a  further  serious  shock  by 
his  proclamation  of  May  29.  1865.  for  the  organization  of  a 
State  government  in  North  Carolina.  That  proclamation 
contained  provisions  in  harmony  with  what  has  been  set 
forth  in  this  paper  concerning  the  political  principles  of  Mr. 
Johnson.  First  of  all,  he  limited  the  franchise  to  persons 
"  qualified  as  prescribed  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina  in  force  immediately  before  the 
20th  day  of  May.  1861,  the  date  of  the  so-called  Ordinance 
of  Secession.  This  provision  was  a  limitation  of  the  suf- 
frage, and  it  excluded  necessarily  the  negro  population  of 
the  State.  It  was  also  a  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  State 
to  reappear  as  a  State  in  the  Union.  It  was,  indeed,  an  early 
assertion  of  the  phrase  which  afterwards  became  controlling 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       103 

with  many  persons — "  Once  a  State,  always  a  State."  He 
further  recognized  the  right  of  the  State  to  reappear  as  a 
State  in  the  organization  and  powers  of  the  convention 
which  was  to  be  called  under  the  proclamation.  As  to  that 
he  said :  "  The  convention  when  convened,  or  the  legislature 
which  may  be  thereafter  assembled,  will  prescribe  the  quali- 
fication of  electors  and  the  eligibility  of  persons  to  hold  office 
under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  State,  a  power  the 
people  of  the  several  States  composing  the  Union  have  right- 
fully exercised  from  the  origin  of  the  Government  to  the 
present  time."  There  were  further  instructions  given  in  the 
proclamation  as  to  the  duties  of  various  officers  of  the  United 
States  to  aid  Governor  Holden,  who,  by  the  same  procla- 
mation, was  appointed  "  Provisional  Governor  of  the  State  of 
North  Carolina." 

Upon  the  publication  of  this  proclamation  I  was  so  much 
disturbed  that  I  proceeded  at  once  to  Washington,  but  with- 
out any  definite  idea  as  to  what  could  be  done  to  arrest  the 
step  which  seemed  to  me  a  dangerous  step  towards  the  re- 
organization of  the  Government  upon  an  unsound  basis. 
At  that  time  I  had  had  no  conversation  with  Mr.  Johnson, 
either  before  or  after  he  came  to  the  Presidency,  upon  any 
subject  whatever.  The  interview  which  I  secured  upon  that 
visit  was  the  sole  personal  interview  that  ever  occurred  be- 
tween us.  I  called  upon  Senator  Morrill  of  Vermont,  and 
together  we  made  a  visit  to  the  President.  I  spoke  of  the 
features  of  the  proclamation  that  seemed  to  me  objectionable. 
He  said  that  "  the  measure  was  tentative  "  only,  and  that 
until  the  experiment  had  been  tried  no  other  proclamation 
would  be  issued.  Upon  that  I  said  in  substance  that  the  Re- 
publican Party  might  accept  the  proclamation  as  an  experi- 
ment, but  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  ideas  of  the  party, 
and  that  a  continuance  of  the  policy  would  work  a  disrup- 
tion of  the  party.     He  assured  us  that  nothing  further  would 


104  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

be  done  until  the  experiment  had  been  tested.  With  that 
assurance  we  left  the  Executive  Mansion. 

On  the  13th  day  of  June,  1865,  a  similar  proclamation 
was  issued  in  reference  to  the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  on  the 
17th  of  June,  the  21st  and  30th  of  June,  and  the  13th 
day  of  July,  corresponding  proclamations  were  issued  in 
reference  to  the  States  of  Georgia,  Texas,  Alabama,  South 
Carolina,  and  Florida.  In  each  State  a  person  was  named 
as  Provisional  Governor.  This  action  led  to  a  division  of 
the  party  and  to  its  subsequent  reorganization  against  the 
President's  policy. 

In  his  letter  of  acceptance  of  the  nomination  made  by  the 
Union  Convention,  Mr.  Johnson  endorsed,  without  reserve, 
the  platform  that  had  been  adopted.  The  declarations  of  the 
platform  did  not  contain  a  reference  to  the  reorganization  of 
the  Government  in  the  event  of  the  success  of  the  Union 
arms.  The  declarations  were  enumerated  in  this  order :  the 
Union  was  tc  be  maintained;  the  war  was  to  be  prosecuted 
upon  the  basis  of  an  unconditional  surrender  of  the  rebels; 
and  slavery,  as  the  cause  of  the  war,  was  to  be  abolished. 
The  added  resolutions  related  to  the  services  of  the  soldiers 
and  sailors,  and  to  the  policy  of  Abraham  Lincoln  as  Presi- 
dent. It  was  further  declared  that  the  public  credit  should 
be  maintained,  that  there  should  be  a  vigorous  and  just  sys- 
tem of  taxes,  and  that  the  people  would  view  with  "  extreme 
jealousy,"  and  as  enemies  to  the  peace  and  independence 
of  the  country,  the  efforts  of  any  power  to  obtain  new  foot- 
holds for  monarchical  government  on  this  continent.  Such 
being  the  character  of  the  platform,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
Mr.  Johnson  challenged  its  declarations  in  the  policy  on 
which  he  entered  for  the  reorganization  of  the  Government. 
In  Mr.  Johnson's  letter  of  acceptance  he  preserved  his  rela- 
tions to  the  Democrats  by  the  use  of  this  phrase :  "  I  cannot 
forego  the  opportunity  of  saying  to  my  old  friends  of  the 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       105 

Democratic  Party  proper,  with  whom  I  have  so  long  and 
pleasantly  been  associated,  that  the  hour  has  come  when  that 
great  party  can  justly  indicate  its  devotion  to  the  Demo- 
cratic policy  in  measures  of  expediency." 

The  controversy  with  Mr.  Johnson  had  its  origin  in  the 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Government. 
That  difference  led  him  to  the  conclusion  that  the  rebellion 
had  not  worked  any  change  in  the  legal  relations  of  the 
seceding  States  to  the  National  Government.  His  motto 
was  this :  "  Once  a  State,  always  a  State,"  whatever  might 
be  its  conduct  either  of  peace  or  of  war.  There  were,  how- 
ever, differences  of  opinion  among  those  who  adhered  to  the 
Republican  Party.  Mr.  Stevens,  who  was  a  recognized,  if 
not  the  recognized,  leader  of  the  Republican  Party,  advocated 
the  doctrine  that  the  eleven  States  were  to  be  treated  as 
enemy's  territory,  and  to  be  governed  upon  whatever  sys- 
tem might  be  acceptable  to  the  States  that  had  remained  true 
to  the  Union.  Mr.  Sumner  maintained  the  doctrine  that  the 
eleven  States  were  Territories,  and  that  they  were  to  be 
subject  to  the  General  Government  until  Congress  should 
admit  the  several  Territories  as  State  organizations.  The 
fourth  day  of  May,  1864,  I  presented  a  series  of  resolutions 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  which  I  asserted  this 
doctrine:  The  communities  that  have  been  in  rebellion  can 
be  organized  into  States  only  by  the  will  of  the  loyal  people 
expressed  freely  and  in  the  absence  of  all  coercion;  that 
States  so  organized  can  become  States  of  the  American 
Union  only  when  they  shall  have  applied  for  admission  and 
their  admission  shall  have  been  authorized  by  the  existing 
National  Government.  A  small  number  of  persons  who 
were  identified  with  the  Republican  Party  sustained  the 
policy  of  Mr.  Johnson.  Others  were  of  the  opinion  that  the 
eleven  States  were  out  of  their  proper  relation  to  the  Union, 
as  was  declared  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  last  speech,  -and  that 


io6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

they  could  become  members  of  tlie  American  Union  only 
by  the  organized  action  of  each,  and  the  concurrent  action 
of  the  existing  National  Government.  The  Government 
was  reorganized  without  any  distinct  declaration  upon 
the  question  whether  the  States  that  had  been  in  rebel- 
lion were  to  be  treated  as  enemy's  territory,  or  as  Territories 
according  to  the  usage  of  former  times.  The  difference  of 
opinion  was  a  vital  one  with  Mr.  Johnson.  Whatever  view 
may  be  taken  of  his  moral  qualities,  it  is  to  be  said  that  he 
was  not  deficient  in  intellectual  ability,  that  his  courage 
passed  far  beyond  the  line  of  obstinacy,  and  that  from  first  to 
last  he  was  prepared  to  resist  the  claims  of  the  large  ma- 
jority of  the  Republican  Party.  The  issue  began  with  his 
proclamation  of  May,  1865,  and  the  contest  continued  to  the 
end  of  his  term.  The  nature  of  the  issue  explains  the  char- 
acter and  violence  of  his  speeches,  especially  that  of  the 
twenty-second  day  of  February,  1866,  when  he  spoke  of 
Congress  as  a  "  body  hanging  on  the  verge  of  the 
Government." 

In  the  many  speeches  which  he  delivered  in  his  trip 
through  the  West,  he  made  distinct  charges  against  Con- 
gress. He  was  accompanied  by  Mr.  Seward,  General  Grant, 
Admiral  Farragut,  and  some  others.  In  a  speech  at  Cleve- 
land, Ohio,  he  said,  among  other  things,  ''  I  have  called 
upon  your  Congress,  which  has  tried  to  break  up  the  Gov- 
ernment.'' Again,  in  the  same  speech  he  said,  "  I  tell  you, 
my  countrymen,  that  although  the  powers  of  Thad  Stevens 
and  his  gang  were  by,  they  could  not  turn  me  from  my 
purpose.  There  is  no  power  that  can  turn  me,  except  you  and 
the  God  who  put  me  into  existence."  He  charged,  also,  that 
Congress  had  taken  great  pains  to  poison  their  constituents 
against  him.  "What  had  Congress  done?  Had  they  done 
anything  to  restore  the  Union  in  those  States?  No;  on  the 
contrary,  they  had  done  everything  to  prevent  it." 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       107 

In  a  speech  made  at  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  September  8, 
1866,  Mr.  Johnson  discussed  the  riot  at  New  Orleans.*  In 
that  speech  he  said,  "  If  you  will  take  up  the  riot  in  New 
Orleans,  and  trace  it  back  to  its  source,  or  its  immediate 
cause,  you  will  find  out  who  was  responsible  for  the  blood 
that  was  shed  there.  If  you  will  take  up  the  riot  at  New 
Orleans  and  trace  it  back  to  the  radical  Congress,  you  will 
find  that  the  riot  at  New  Orleans  was  substantially  planned." 
After  some  further  observations,  he  says :  "  Yes,  you  will 
find  that  another  rebellion  was  commenced,  having  its  origin 
in  the  radical  Congress." 

These  extracts  from  Mr.  Johnson's  speeches  should  be 
considered  in  connection  with  his  proclamations  of  May, 
June,  and  July,  1865.  They  are  conclusive  to  this  point: 
that  he  had  determined  to  reconstruct  the  Government  upon 
the  basis  of  the  return  of  the  States  that  had  been  engaged  in 
the  rebellion  without  the  imposition  of  any  conditions 
whatsoever,  except  such  as  he  had  imposed  upon  them  in 
his  proclamations.  In  fine,  that  the  Government  was  to  be 
re-established  without  the  authority  or  even  the  assent  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  In  his  proclamations  he 
made  provision  for  the  framing  of  constitutions  in  the  re- 
spective States,  their  ratification  by  the  people,  excluding  all 
those  who  were  not  voters  in  April,  1861,  and  for  the  elec- 
tion of  Senators  and  Representatives  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  without  the  assent  of  the  Representatives  of  the 
existing   States. 

When  I  arrived  in  Washington  to  attend  the  meeting  of 
Congress  at  the  December  session,  1866,  I  received  a  note 
from  Mr.  Stanton  asking  me  to  meet  him  at  the  War  Office 
with  as  little  delay  as  might  be  practicable.  When  I  called 
at  the  War  Office,  he  beckoned  me  to  retire  to  his  private 

*  This  was  a  race  riot,  which  occurred  July  30, 1866,  and  in  which  many 
negroes  were  killed. — Editor. 


io8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

room,  where  he  soon  met  me.     He  then  said  tliat  he  had  been 
more  disturbed  by  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  preceding 
weeks  and  months  than  he  had  been  at  any  time  during  the 
war.       He  gave  me   to  understand   that   orders   had   been 
issued  to  the  army  of  which  neither  he  nor  General  Grant 
had  any  knowledge.     He  further  gave  me  to  understand  also 
that   he   apprehended   an   attempt   by   the   President   to   re- 
organize the  Government  by  the  assembling  of  a  Congress  in 
which  the  members  from  the  seceding  States  and  the  Demo- 
cratic members  from  the  North  might  obtain  control  through 
the  aid  of  the  Executive.     He  then  said  that  he  thought 
it  necessary  that  some  act  should  be  passed  by  which  the 
power  of  the  President  might  be  limited.     Under  his  dicta- 
tion, and  after  such  consultation  as  seemed  to  be  required, 
I   drafted   amendments   to   the   Appropriation   Bill    for   the 
Support  of  the  Army,  which  contained  the  following  pro- 
visions :     The  headquarters   of   the   General   of   the   Army 
were  fixed  at  Washington,  where  he  w-as  to  remain  unless 
transferred  to  duty  elsewhere  by  his  own  consent  or  by  the 
consent  of  the  Senate.      Next,  it  was  made  a  misdemeanor 
for  the  President  to  transmit  orders  to  any  officer  of  the 
army  except  through  the  General  of  the  Army.     It  was  also 
made  a  misdemeanor  for  any  officer  to  obey  orders  issued 
in  any  other  way  than  through  the  General  of  the  Army, 
knowing  that   the   same   had  been   so   issued.     These   pro- 
visions were  taken  by  me  to  Mr.  Stevens,  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Appropriations.     After  some  explanation, 
the  measure  was  accepted  by  the  committee  and  incorporated 
in  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill.     The  bill  was  approved  by 
the  President  the  second  day  of  March,  1867.     His  approval 
was  accompanied  by  a  protest  on  his  part  that  the  provision 
was  unconstitutional,  and  by  the  statement  that  he  approved 
the  bill  only  because  it  was  necessary  for  the  support  of 
the  army. 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON        109 

At  the  time  of  my  interview  with  Mr.  Stanton,  I  was  not 
informed  fully  as  to  the  events  that  had  transpired  in  the  pre- 
ceding months,  nor  can  I  now  say  that  everything  which  had 
transpired  of  importance  was  then  known  to  Mr.  Stanton. 
The  statement  that  I  am  now  to  make  was  derived  from 
conversations  with  General  Grant.  At  a  time  previous  to 
the  December  session  of  1866,  the  President  said  to  General 
Grant,  "  I  may  wish  to  send  you  on  a  mission  to  Mexico." 
General  Grant  replied,  "  It  may  not  be  convenient  for  me 
to  go  to  Mexico."  Little,  if  anything,  further  was  said  be- 
tween the  President  and  General  Grant.  At  a  subsequent 
time  General  Grant  was  invited  to  a  Cabinet  meeting.  At 
that  meeting  Mr.  Seward  read  a  paper  of  instructions  to 
General  Grant  as  Minister  of  some  degree  to  Mexico.  The 
contents  of  the  paper  did  not  impress  General  Grant  very 
seriously,  for  in  the  communication  that  he  made  to  me  he 
said  that  "  the  instructions  came  out  very  near  where  they 
went  in.''  At  the  end  of  the  reading  General  Grant  said, 
"  You  recollect,  Mr.  President,  I  said  it  would  not  be  con- 
venient for  me  to  go  to  Mexico."  Upon  that  a  conversation 
followed,  when  the  President  became  heated,  and  rising 
from  his  seat,  and  striking  the  table  with  some  force,  he 
said.  "  Is  there  an  officer  of  the  army  who  will  not  obey 
my  instructions?  "  General  Grant  took  his  hat  in  his  hand, 
and  said,  "  I  am  an  officer  of  the  army,  but  I  am  a  citizen 
also;  and  this  is  a  civil  service  that  you  require  of  me.  I 
decline  it."  He  then  left  the  meeting.  It  happened  also 
that  previous  to  this  conversation  the  President  had  ordered 
General  Sherman,  who  was  in  command  at  Fort  Leaven- 
worth, to  report  at  Washington.  General  Sherman  obeyed 
the  order,  came  to  Washington,  and  had  a  conference  with 
General  Grant  before  he  reported  to  the  President.  In  that 
situation  of  affairs  General  Sherman  was  sent  to  Mexico  upon 
the  mission  which  had  been  prepared  for  General  Grant. 


no  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

The  suggestion  that  Mr.  Johnson  contemplated  the  re- 
organization of  the  Government  by  the  admission  of  the 
States  that  had  been  in  rebelHon,  and  by  the  recognition  of 
Senators  and  Representatives  that  might  be  assigned  from 
tliose  States,  received  support  from  the  testimony  given  by 
Q  I  Major-General  William  H.  Emery,  and  also  from  the  testi- 
mony of  General  Grant.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1867 
and  the  first  part  of  the  year  1868.  General  Emery  was  in  "} 
command  of  the  Department  of  Washington.  When  he 
entered  upon  the  command,  he  called  upon  the  President. 
A  conversation,  apparently  not  very  important,  occurred  be- 
tween them,  as  to  the  military  forces  then  in  that  depart- 
ment. In  February.  1868,  the  President  directed  his  sec- 
retary to  ask  General  Emery  to  call  upon  him  as  early  as 
practicable.  In  obedience  to  that  request  General  Emery 
called  on  the  twenty-second  day  of  February.  The  Presi- 
dent referred  to  the  former  conversation,  and  then  inquired 
whether  any  changes  had  been  made,  and  especially  within 
the  recent  days,  in  the  mihtary  forces  under  Emery's  com- 
mand. In  the  course  of  the  conversation  growing  out  of 
these  requests  for  information.  General  Emery  referred  to 
an  order  which  had  then  been  recently  issued  which  em- 
bodied the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Alarch.  1867,  in  regard 
to  the  command  of  the  army  and  the  transmission  of  orders. 
The  President  then  said  to  Emery : 

"  What  order  do  you  refer  to?  " 

In  reply  Emery  said  : 

"  Order  No."  17  of  the  Series  of  1867." 

The  order  was  produced  and  read  by  the  President,  who 
said : 

"  This  is  not  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  that  makes  me  commander-in-chief,  or  with 
the  terms  of  your  commission," 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       1 1 1 

General  Emery  said : 

"  That  is  the  order  which  you  have  approved  and  issued 
to  the  army  for  our  Government." 

The  President  then  said : 

"  Am  I  to  understand  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  cannot  give  an  order  except  through  the  head  of  the 
army,  or  General  Grant  ? '' 

In  the  course  of  the  conversation  General  Emery  in- 
formed the  President  that  eminent  lawyers  had  been  con- 
sulted, that  he  had  consulted  Robert  J.  Walker,  and  that  all 
of  the  lawyers  consulted  had  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
officers  of  the  army  were  bound  by  the  order  whether  the 
statute  was  constitutional  or  unconstitutional. 

When  General  Grant  was  before  the  Judiciary  Committee 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  during  the  impeachment 
investigation,  this  question  was  put  to  him : 

"  Have  you  at  any  time  heard  the  President  make  any 
remark  in  regard  to  the  admission  of  members  of  Congress 
from  rebel  States  in  either  House?" 

"  I  cannot  say  positively  what  I  have  heard  him  say.  I 
have  heard  him  say  as  much  in  his  public  speeches  as  any- 
where else.  I  have  heard  him  say  twice  in  his  speeches  that 
if  the  North  carried  the  election  by  members  enough  to 
give  them,  with  the  Southern  members,  the  majority,  why 
should  they  not  be  the  Congress  of  the  United  States?  I 
have  heard  him  say  that  several  times." 

That  answer  was  followed  by  this  question: 

"  When  you  say  the  North,  you  m_ean  the  Democratic 
Party  of  the  North,  or,  in  other  words,  the  party  advocating 
his  policy?  " 

General  Grant  replied: 

"  I  meant  if  the  North  carried  enough  members  in  favor 
of  the  admission  of  the  South.     I  did  not  hear  him  say  that 


112  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

he  would  recognize  them  as  the  Congress,  I  merely  heard 
him  ask  the  question,  '  Why  would  they  not  be  the 
Congress?  *  " 

At  this  point,  and  without  further  discussion  of  the  pur- 
pose of  Mr.  Johnson  in  regard  to  the  reorganization  of  the 
Government,  I  think  it  may  be  stated  without  injustice  to 
him,  that  while  he  was  opposed  to  secession  at  the  time  the 
Confederate  Government  was  organized,  and  thencefor- 
ward and  always  without  change  of  opinion,  yet  he  was  also 
of  opinion  that  the  act  of  secession  by  the  several  States  had 
not  disturbed  their  legal  relations  to  the  National  Govern- 
ment. Acting  upon  that  opinion,  he  proceeded  to  reorganize 
the  State  governments,  and  with  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
admission  of  their  Senators  and  Representatives  without 
seeking  or  accepting  the  judgment  of  Congress  upon  the  ques- 
tions involved  in  the  proceeding.  On  one  vital  point  he 
erred  seriously  and  fundamentally  as  to  the  authority  of  the 
President  in  the  matter.  From  the  nature  of  our  Government 
there  could  be  no  escape  in  a  legal  point  of  view  from  the 
conclusion  that,  whatever  the  relations  were  of  the  seceding 
States  to  the  General  Government,  the  method  of  restoration 
was  to  be  ascertained  and  determined  by  Congress,  and  not 
by  the  President  acting  as  the  chief  executive  authority 
of  the  nation.  In  a  legal  and  constitutional  view,  that  act 
on  his  part,  although  resting  upon  opinions  which  he  had 
long  entertained,  and  which  were  entertained  by  many  others, 
must  be  treated  as  an  act  of  usurpation. 

The  facts  embodied  in  the  charges  on  which  Mr.  Johnson 
was  impeached  by  the  House  and  arraigned  before  the  Sen- 
ate were  not  open  to  doubt,  but  legal  proof  was  wanting 
in  regard  to  the  exact  language  of  his  speeches.  The  charges 
were  in  substance  these:  That  he  had  attacked  the  integrity 
and  the  lawful  authority  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  in  public  speeches  made  in  the  presence  of  the  country. 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       113 

The  second  charge  was  that  he  had  attempted  the  removal 
of  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  and 
that,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate,  he  had  so  re- 
moved him,  contrary  to  the  act  of  Congress,  known  as  the 
Tenure  of  Office  Act.  In  the  first  investigation  into  the 
conduct  of  Andrew  Johnson,  he  was  described  in  the  reso- 
lution as  "  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  discharg- 
ing at  present  the  duties  of  President  of  the  United  States." 
The  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
the  seventh  day  of  March,  1867.  A  large  amount  of  testi- 
mony was  taken,  and  the  report  of  the  committee,  in  three 
parts,  by  the  different  members,  was  submitted  to  the  House 
the  fourth  day  of  the  following  December.  The  majority 
of  the  committee,  consisting  of  George  S.  Boutwell,  Francis 
Thomas,  Thomas  Williams,  William  Lawrence,  and  John  C. 
Churchill,  reported  a  resolution  providing  for  the  impeach- 
ment of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  these  words : 
"  Resolved,  that  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United 
States,  be  impeached  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors." 
It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  resolution  for  his  impeach- 
ment he  is  described  as  "  President  of  the  United  States,'' 
while  in  the  resolution  authorizing  the  inquiry  into  his  con- 
duct he  is  described  as  "  Vice-President,  discharging  at  pres- 
ent the  duties  of  the  President  of  the  United  States."  This 
question  received  very  careful  consideration  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  the  conclusion  was  reached  that  he  was  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  although  he  had  been  elected 
only  to  the  office  of  Vice-President.  As  that  question  was 
not  raised  at  the  trial  by  demurrer  or  motion,  it  may  now  be 
accepted  as  the  established  doctrine  that  the  Vice-President, 
when  he  enters  upon  the  duties  of  President,  becomes  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  The  extended  report  that  was 
made  by  the  majority  of  the  committee  was  written  by  Mr. 
Williams.      The    summary,    which    was    in    the   nature   of 


114  SIXTY  YEARS  IN   PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

charges,  was  written  by  myself.  That  summary  set  forth 
twenty-eight  specifications  of  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the 
President,  many  of  wliich,  however,  were  abandoned  when 
the  articles  of  impeachment  were  prepared  in  February,  1868. 

In  the  discussions  of  the  committee  there  were  serious 
differences  of  opinion  upon  provisions  of  law.  The  minority 
of  the  committee,  consisting  of  James  F.  Wilson,  who  was 
chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  Frederick  E.  Wood- 
bridge,  S.  S.  Marshall,  and  Charles  E.  Eldridge,  maintained 
the  doctrine  that  a  civil  officer  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  not  liable  to  impeachment  except  for  the 
commission  of  an  indictable  offence.  This  doctrine  had  very 
large  support  in  the  legal  profession,  resting  on  remarks 
found  in  Blackstone.  On  the  other  hand.  Chancellor  Kent, 
in  his  Commentaries,  had  given  support  to  the  doctrine  that 
a  civil  officer  was  liable  to  impeachment  who  misdemeaned 
himself  in  his  office.  The  provision  of  the  Constitution  is  in 
these  words : 

"  The  President,  Vice-President,  and  all  Civil  Officers  of 
the  United  States  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeach- 
ment for,  and  conviction  of,  treason,  bribery,  or  other  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors." 

The  majority  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  in  the  con- 
troversy which  arose  in  the  committee  and  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  maintained  that  the  word  "  misdemeanors  " 
was  used  in  a  political  sense,  and  not  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  used  in  the  criminal  law.  In  support  of  this  view  at- 
tention was  called  to  the  fact  that  the  party  convicted  was 
liable  only  to  removal  from  office,  and  therefore  that  the 
object  of  the  process  of  impeachment  was  the  purification 
and  preservation  of  the  civil  service.  In  the  opinion  of 
the  majority,  it  was  the  necessity  of  the  situation  that  the 
power  of  impeachment  should  extend  to  acts  and  offences 
that  were  not  indictable  by  statute  nor  at  common  law.    The 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON        115 

report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  made  the  twenty-fifth  day 
of  November,  was  rejected  by  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  attempt  of  the  President  to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  from 
the  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War  revived 
the  question  of  impeachment,  and  on  Monday,  the  twenty- 
fourth  day  of  February,  1868,  the  House  of  Representatives 
"  resolved  to  impeach  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the 
United  States,  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors."  The 
articles  of  impeachment  were  acted  on  by  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives the  second  day  of  March,  and  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March  they  were  presented  to  the  Senate  through  Mr. 
Bingham,  chairman  of  the  managers,  who  was  designated 
for  that  duty. 

The  articles  were  directed  to  the  following  points,  namely : 
That  the  President,  by  his  speeches,  had  attempted  "  to  set 
aside  the  rightful  authority  and  powers  of  Congress  " ;  that 
he  had  attempted  "  to  bring  into  disgrace,  ridicule,  hatred, 
contempt,  and  reproach  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
and  the  several  branches  thereof  " ;  and  "  that  he  had  at- 
tempted to  incite  the  odium  and  resentment  of  all  the  good 
people  of  the  United  States  against  Congress  and  the  laws 
by  them  duly  and  constitutionally  enacted."  Further,  it 
was  alleged  that  he  had  declared  in  speeches  that  the 
*'  Thirty-ninth  Congress  of  the  United  States  was  not  a  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  authorized  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  to  exercise  legislative  power  in  the  same." 

A  further  charge,  and  on  which  greater  reliance  was 
placed,  was  set  forth  in  these  words :  "  That  he  had  denied 
and  intended  to  deny  the  power  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress to  propose  amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States."  These  articles  were  in  substance  the  arti- 
cles that  had  been  rejected  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  1867.  Finally,  as  the  most  important  averment  of  all, 
the  President  was  charged  with  an  "  attempt  to  prevent  the 


ii6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

execution  of  the  act  entitled  '  An  Act  Regfulating  the  Tenure 
of  Certain  Civil  Offices.'  passed  March  2,  1867,  by  unlaw- 
fully devising  and  contriving  and  attempting  to  devise  and 
contrive  means  by  which  he  could  prevent  Edwin  M.  Stan- 
ton from  forthwith  resuming  the  functions  of  the  office  of 
the  Secretary  for  the  Department  of  War,  notwithstanding 
the  refusal  of  the  Senate  to  concur  in  the  suspension  thereto- 
fore made  by  said  Andrew  Johnson  of  the  said  Edwin  M. 
Stanton  from  said  office  of  Secretary  for  the  Department  of 
War."  In  various  forms  of  language  these  several  charges 
were  set  forth  in  the  different  articles  of  impeachment  — 
eleven  in  all.  The  eleventh  article,  which  was  prepared  by 
Mr.  Stevens,  embodied  the  summary  of  all  the  charges 
mentioned.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  the  eleventh  article 
there  is  no  allegation  that  the  President  had  committed  an 
offence  that  was  indictable  under  any  statute  of  the  United 
States  or  that  would  have  been  indictable  at  common  law. 
It  may  be  assumed,  I  think,  that  for  this  country,  at  least, 
the  question  that  was  raised  at  the  beginning  and  argued 
with  great  force,  and  by  which  possibly  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives may  have  been  influenced  in  the  year  1867.  ^^^ 
been  settled  to  accord  w-ith  tlie  report  of  the  majority  of  the 
Judiciary  Committee.  The  House  decided  that  the  President 
twas  impeachable  for  misdemeanors  in  office.  With  stronger 
reason  it  may  be  said  that  every  other  civil  officer  is  bound 
to  behave  himself  well  in  his  office.  He  cannot  do  any  act 
which  impairs  his  standing  in  the  place  which  he  holds,  or 
which  may  bring  discredit  upon  the  public,  and  especially 
he  may  not  do  any  act  in  disregard  of  his  oath  to  obey  the 
laws  and  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  The 
eleventh  article  was  the  chief  article  that  was  submitted  to  a 
vote  in  the  Senate  The  question  raised  by  that  article  was 
this  in  substance:  Is  the  President  of  the  United  States 
guilty  in  manner  and  form  as  set  forth  in  this  article?     On 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       117 

that  question  thirty-five  Senators  voted  that  he  was  guilty, 
and  nineteen  Senators  voted  that  he  was  not  guilty.  Un- 
der the  Constitution  the  President  was  found  not  guilty  of 
the  offences  charged,  but  the  majority  given  may  be  ac- 
cepted, and  probably  will  be  accepted,  as  the  judgment  of  the 
Senate  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  liable  to  im- 
peachment and  removal  from  office  for  acts  and  conduct  that 
do  not  subject  him  to  the  process  of  indictment  and  trial 
in  the  criminal  courts.  At  this  point  I  express  the  opinion 
that  something  has  been  gained,  indeed  that  much  has  been 
gained,  by  the  decision  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  sup- 
ported by  the  opinions  of  a  large  majority  in  the  Senate. 

The  answer  of  the  respondent,  considered  in  connection 
with  the  arguments  that  were  made  by  his  counsel,  sets  forth 
the  ground  upon  which  the  Republican  members  of  the  Sen- 
ate may  have  voted  that  the  President  was  not  guilty  of  the 
two  principal  offences  charged,  viz. :  that  in  his  speeches  he 
had  denounced  and  brought  into  contempt,  intentionally,  the 
Consrress  of  the  United  States;  and,  second,  that  his  at-\ 
tempted  removal  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton  was  a  violation  of  the 
Tenure  of  Office  Act.  In  the  President's  answer  to  article 
ten,  which  contained  the  allegation  that  in  his  speech  at  St. 
Louis,  in  the  year  1866,  he  had  used  certain  language  in 
derogation  of  the  authority  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  it  was  averred  that  the  extracts  did  not  present  his 
speech  or  address  accurately.  Further  than  that,  it  was 
claimed  that  the  allegation  under  that  article  was  not  "  cog- 
nizable by  the  court  as  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office." 
Finally,  it  was  claimed  that  proof  should  be  made  of  the 
"  actual  "  speech  and  address  of  the  President  on  that  oc- 
casion. The  managers  were  not  able  to  meet  the  demand 
for  proof  in  a  technical  sense.  The  speech  was  reported 
in  the  ordinary  way,  and  the  proof  was  limited  to  the  good 
faith  of  the  reporters  and  the  general  accuracy  of  the  printed 


ii8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

report  in  the  newspapers.  In  this  situation  as  to  the  charges 
and  the  answer,  it  is  not  difficult  to  reach  the  conclusion 
that  members  of  the  Senate  had  ground  for  the  vote  of  not 
guilty  upon  the  several  charges  in  regard  to  the  speeches 
that  were  imputed  to  the  President. 

Judge  Curtis,  in  his  opening  argument,  furnished  a  techni- 
cal answer  to  the  article  in  which  the  President  was  charged 
with  the  violation  of  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act,  in  his  attempt 
to  remove  Mr.  Stanton  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the 
Department  of  War.  Judge  Curtis  gave  to  the  proviso  to 
that  statute  an  interpretation  corresponding  to  the  interpreta- 
tion given  to  criminal  statutes.  Mr.  Stanton  was  appointed 
to  the  office  in  the  first  term  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  administration. 
The  proviso  of  the  statute  was  in  these  words:  "  Provided 
that  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the  Treasury,  of  War,  etc., 
shall  hold  their  offices  for  and  during  the  term  of  the  President 
by  whom  they  may  have  been  appointed,  and  for  one  month 
thereafter,  subject  to  their  removal  by  and  with  the  advice  of 
the  Senate."  The  proviso  contained  exceptions  to  the  body 
of  the  statute,  by  which  all  civil  officers  who  held  appointments 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  were  secure 
in  their  places  unless  the  Senate  should  assent  to  their  removal. 
It  was  the  object  of  the  proviso  to  relieve  an  incoming  Presi- 
dent of  Secretaries  who  had  been  appointed  by  his  prede- 
cessor. The  construction  of  the  proviso,  as  given  by  Judge 
Curtis,  was  fatal  to  the  position  taken  by  the  managers.  It 
w^as  claimed  by  the  managers  that  the  sole  object  of  the  pro- 
viso was  the  relief  of  an  incoming  President  from  the  con- 
tinuance of  a  Secretary  in  office  beyond  thirty  days  after  the 
commencement  of  his  term,  and  that  it  had  no  reference  what- 
ever to  the  right  of  the  President  to  remove  a  Secretary  dur- 
ing his  term. 

There  were  incidents  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  that 
possess  historical  value.     By  the  Constitution  the  Chief  Jus- 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       119 

tice  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  made  the  presiding  officer  in 
the  Senate  when  the  President  is  put  upon  trial  on  articles 
of  impeachment.  Chief  Justice  Chase  claimed  that  he  was 
to  be  addressed  as  "  Chief  Justice."  That  claim  was  recog- 
nized by  the  counsel  for  the  President  and  by  some  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate.  The  managers  claimed  that  he  was  there 
as  the  presiding  officer,  and  not  in  his  judicial  capacity.  He 
was  addressed  by  the  managers  and  by  some  of  the  Senators 
as  "  Mr.  President." 

There  was  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Senate,  and  a  dif- 
ference between  the  managers  and  the  counsel  for  the  re- 
spondent, as  to  the  right  of  the  presiding  officer  to  rule  upon 
questions  of  law  and  evidence  arising  m  the  course  of  the 
trial.  Under  the  rule  of  the  Senate  as  adopted,  the  rulings  of 
the  President  were  to  stand  unless  a  Senator  should  ask  for 
the  judgment  of  the  Senate. 

Other  instances  occurred  which  do  not  possess  historical 
value,  but  were  incidents  unusual  in  judicial  proceedings. 
When  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  was  entering 
upon  the  investigation  of  the  conduct  of  President  Johnson, 
General  Butler  expressed  the  opinion  that  upon  the  adoption 
of  articles  of  impeachment  by  the  House  the  President  would 
be  suspended  in  his  office  until  the  verdict  of  the  Senate. 
As  this  view  was  not  accepted  by  the  committee,  I  made  these 
remarks  in  my  opening  speech  to  the  House  after  a  review  of 
the  arguments  for  and  against  the  proposition : 

"  I  cannot  doubt  the  soundness  of  the  opinion  that  the 
President,  even  when  impeached  by  the  House,  is  entitled 
to  his  office  until  he  has  been  convicted  by  the  Senate." 

This  view  was  accepted. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  managers  I  was  elected  chair- 
man by  the  votes  of  Mr.  Stevens,  General  Logan,  and  General 
Butler.  Mr.  Bingham  received  the  votes  of  Mr.  Wilson  and 
Mr.  Williams.     Upon  the  announcement  of  the  vote,   Mr. 


120  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Bingham  made  remarks  indicating  serious  disappointment  and 
a  purpose  to  retire  from  the  Board  of  Managers.  I  accepted 
the  election,  and  acted  as  chairman  at  the  meeting.  At  the 
next  meeting,  and  without  consultation  with  my  associates, 
I  resigned  the  place  and  nominated  Mr.  Bingham.  The  nomi- 
nation was  not  objected  to,  and  Mr.  Bingham  took  the  chair 
without  comment  by  himself,  nor  was  there  any  comment  by 
any  other  person.  The  gentlemen  who  had  given  me  their 
votes  and  support  criticized  my  conduct  with  considerable 
freedom,  and  were  by  no  means  reconciled  by  the  statement 
which  I  made  to  them.  Having  reference  to  the  nature  of  the 
contest  and  the  condition  of  public  sentiment,  I  thought  it  im- 
portant that  the  managers  should  avoid  any  controversy  be- 
fore the  public,  especially  as  to  a  matter  of  premiership  in 
the  conduct  of  the  trial.  It  seemed  to  be  important  that  the 
entire  force  of  the  House  of  Representatives  should  be  di- 
rected to  one  object,  the  conviction  of  the  accused.  Beyond 
this,  Mr.  Bingham  and  Mr.  Wilson  had  been  opposed  to  the 
impeachment  of  Mr.  Johnson  when  the  attempt  was  first 
made  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  I  thought  it  import- 
ant to  combine  the  strength  that  they  represented  in  support 
of  the  proceeding  in  which  we  were  then  engaged.  If  Mr. 
Stevens  had  been  in  good  health,  he  would  have  received 
my  support  and  the  support  of  General  Butler  and  General 
Logan.  At  that  time  his  health  was  much  impaired,  but  his 
intellectual  faculties  were  free  from  any  cloud. 

Another  incident  occurred  which  does  not  require  ex- 
planation, and  which  may  not  be  open  to  any  explanation. 
After  the  report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  and  its  rejection 
by  the  House  of  Representatives,  I  was  surprised  to  receive 
an  invitation  from  the  President  to  dine  with  him  at  what  is 
known  as  a  State  dinner.  I  assumed  that  arrangements  had 
been  made  for  a  series  of  such  dinners,  and  that  the  invitations 
had  been  sent  out  by  a  clerk  upon  a  prearranged  plan  as  to  the 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON        121 

order  of  invitations.  When  the  matter  had  passed  out  of 
my  mind,  but  before  the  day  named  for  the  dinner,  I  re- 
ceived a  call  on  the  floor  of  the  House  from  Mr.  Cooper, 
son-in-law  of  the  President  and  secretary  in  the  Executive 
Mansion.  He  asked  me  if  I  had  received  an  invitation  to 
dine  with  the  President.  I  said  I  had.  Next  he  said,  "  Have 
you  answered  it?"  I  said,  "No,  I  have  not."  That  was 
followed  by  the  further  question,  "  Will  you  answer  it?  "  I 
said,  "  No,  I  shall  not."    That  ended  the  conversation. 

After  the  decision  in  the  Senate  had  been  made,  the  man- 
agers proceeded  under  the  order  of  the  House  to  investigate 
the  truthfulness  of  rumors  that  were  afloat,  that  money  and 
other  valuable  considerations  had  been  used  to  secure  the 
acquittal  of  the  President.  That  investigation  established  the 
fact  that  money  had  been  in  the  possession  of  persons  who 
had  been  engaged  in  efforts  to  secure  the  acquittal  of  the 
President.  Those  persons,  with  perhaps  a  single  exception, 
were  persons  who  had  no  official  connection  with  the  Govern- 
ment, and  none  of  them  were  connected  with  the  Govern- 
ment at  Washington.  As  to  most  of  them,  it  appeared  that 
they  had  no  reasons,  indeed  no  good  cause,  why  they  should 
have  taken  part  either  for  the  conviction  of  the  President  or 
in  behalf  of  his  acquittal.  The  sources  from  which  funds 
were  obtained  did  not  appear,  nor  was  there  evidence  indi- 
cating the  amount  that  had  been  used,  nor  the  objects  to 
which  the  money  had  been  applied.  It  should  be  said  as  to 
Senators,  that  there  was  no  evidence  implicating  them  in 
the  receipt  of  money  or  other  valuable  consideration.  One 
very  important  fact  not  then  known  to  the  managers  appeared 
afterwards  in  the  reports  of  the  Treasury  Department,  show- 
ing a  very  large  loss  by  the  Government  during  the  last  eight- 
een months  of  Mr.  Johnson's  administration.  In  that  period 
the  total  receipts  from  the  duties  on  spirits  amounted  to 
$41,678,684.34.    During  the  first  eighteen  months  of  General 


122  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Grant's  administration,  when  the  rates  of  duties  and  taxation 
remained  the  same,  the  total  receipts  of  revenue  from  spirits 
amounted  to  $82,417,419.85,  showing  a  difference  of  $40,- 
738.735.51.  It  is  not  easy  to  explain  in  full  this  money  loss 
in  one  branch  of  the  public  service.  Something  may  be  at- 
tributed to  the  fact  that  persons  obtained  nominations  for 
office  by  representations  to  the  President  that  they  were  his 
friends  and  supporters,  and  would  continue  to  be  so,  under 
all  circumstances.  When  their  nominations  came  to  the  Sen- 
ate, they  made  representations  of  an  opposite  character.  When 
they  had  received  their  appointments,  they  very  naturally 
allied  themselves  with  the  President's  policy,  inasmuch  as  they 
could  not  be  easily  removed  except  upon  an  initiative  taken 
by  him.  This  deficiency  occurred  in  the  states  and  districts 
in  which  the  money  should  have  been  collected  and  through 
the  agents  employed  there.  In  other  words,  no  part  of  the 
deficiency  ever  passed  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  a  majority  of  the  people  now  en- 
tertain the  opinion  that  the  action  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives in  the  attempt  that  was  made  to  impeach  President 
Johnson  was  an  error. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  engage  in  a  discussion  on  that  point.  I 
end  by  the  expression  of  the  opinion  that  the  vote  of  the  House 
and  the  vote  of  the  Senate,  by  which  the  doctrine  was  estab- 
lished that  a  civil  officer  is  liable  to  impeachment  for  mis- 
demeanor in  office,  is  a  gain  to  the  public  that  is  full  com- 
pensation for  the  undertaking,  and  that  these  proceedings 
against  Mr.  Johnson  were  free  from  any  element  or  quality  of 
injustice. 

Johnson's  case  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  all  agitation 
for  a  longer  Presidential  term.  Whenever  the  country  is  en- 
gaged in  a  Presidential  contest  there  are  complaints  by  busi- 
ness men  accompanied  by  a  demand  for  an  extension  of  the 
term  of  office  to  six  or  in  some  instances  to  ten  years.     The 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON       123 

disturbance  to  business  is  due  to  the  importance  of  the  elec- 
tion, and  the  importance  of  an  election  is  due  to  the  amount 
of  power  that  is  to  be  secured  by  the  successful  party.  An 
extension  of  the  term  would  add  to  the  importance  of  the 
election,  and  a  term  of  six  or  ten  years  would  intensify  the 
contest  and  the  injury  to  business  would  be  intensified,  pro- 
portionately. It  is  doubtful  whether  in  a  period  of  twenty  or 
fifty  years  any  appreciable  relief  to  business  would  be  fur- 
nished by  an  extension  of  the  term  of  the  Presidential  office. 

It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  total  of  business  is  not 
as  great  as  it  would  be  in  the  same  four  years  if  the  term  were 
ten  years  instead  of  four.  The  total  of  production  and  con- 
sumption cannot  be  affected  seriously  by  a  political  con- 
troversy that  does  not  extend  usually,  over  a  period  of  more 
than  three  months.  If  business  is  diminished  during  those 
months  there  will  be  a  corresponding  gain  in  the  months  that 
are  to  follow. 

In  a  popular  government  there  must  be  elections,  and  in  all 
such  governments  business  interests  must  be  subordinated 
to  the  general  welfare.  The  changes  that  have  taken  place 
since  the  Government  was  organized  would  justify  the  short- 
ening rather  than  the  lengthening  of  the  Presidential  term. 
The  means  of  communication  are  such  that  two  years  may 
give  the  mass  of  the  people  better  means  for  judging  men 
and  measures  than  could  be  had  in  four  years  at  the  opening 
of  this  century. 

There  is  no  form  of  education  that  more  fully  justifies 
its  cost  than  the  education  that  is  gained  in  a  Presidential 
canvass.  The  newspapers,  the  magazines,  and  more  than  all 
the  speakers — "  stump  orators  "  as  they  are  called — com- 
municate information  and  stimulate  thought.  The  voters  are 
converted  into  a  great  jury,  and  after  full  allowance  is  made 
for  weakness,  corruption  and  coercion,  they  are  advanced  at 
each  quadrennial  contest  in  their  knowledge  of  men,  in  their 


124  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ability  to  deal  with  measures  of  policy,  and  in  comprehension 
of  the  principles  of  government.  If  the  losses  in  business 
were  as  great  as  is  ever  represented,  the  educational  advan- 
tages of  a  Presidential  canvass  are  an  adequate  set-off.  The 
people  have  an  opportunity  to  see  and  hear  the  men  who  are 
engaged  in  public  affairs  and  questions  are  discussed  upon 
their  intrinsic  merits.  In  the  sixty  years  of  my  experience 
there  has  been  a  great  advance  in  the  quality  of  the  speeches 
to  which  the  people  have  listened.  The  speeches  of  1840  would 
not  be  tolerated  in  1900. 

When  great  questions  are  under  debate  appeals  are  made 
to  the  principles  of  government  and  proportionately  the  edu- 
cation of  the  people  is  of  a  higher  grade. 

A  serious  objection  to  a  long  term  in  the  Presidential  office 
is  in  the  fact  that  a  spirit  of  discontent,  that  always  exists, 
will  develop  into  insubordination  or  even  revolution.  We 
have  an  example  in  the  history  of  the  Republic  of  Hayti.  The 
term  is  seven  years  and  in  many  cases  the  President  has 
been  superseded  by  the  leader  of  a  revolutionary  party.  The 
most  recent  instance  was  the  overthrow  of  President  Legi- 
time and  the  instalment  of  Hyppolite.  The  peace  and  pros- 
perity of  Hayti  would  be  promoted  by  reducing  the  term 
of  the  Presidential  office  to  two  years.  The  contests  that 
are  sure  to  arise  among  a  mercurial  people  would  thus  be 
transferred  from  the  battle-field  to  the  ballot-box.  Who  could 
have  answered  for  the  peace  of  the  United  States  in  1868  if 
President  Johnson's  term  had  been  six  years  instead  of  eight 
months? 


XXXIII 

THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869 

IN  March,  1869,  I  was  appointed  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury by  President  Grant.  Soon  after  my  appointment 
Mr.  McCulloch,  the  retiring  Secretary,  said  to  me  that 
I  should  find  the  department  in  excellent  order,  and  that  in 
his  opinion  the  financial  difficulties  of  the  Government  had 
been  overcome.  The  first  of  these  statements  was  true  in 
part,  and  in  part  it  was  very  erroneous. 

The  accounting  branch  of  the  service  was  properly  ad- 
ministered practically,  but  there  were  about  one  hundred 
persons  on  the  pay  rolls  who  had  no  desks  in  the  department, 
and  who  performed  but  little  work  at  their  homes,  where 
some  of  them  ostensibly  were  employed  in  copying. 

Several  heads  of  bureaus  were  notoriously  intemperate. 
This  condition  of  things  was  due  in  part  to  the  war  and  to 
the  exigencies  of  the  department  consequent  upon  the  war; 
and  in  part  it  was  due  to  the  constitutional  infirmities  of  Mr. 
Chase  and  Mr.  McCulloch.  In  some  respects  they  resembled 
each  other.  They  were  phlegmatic  in  temperament,  lacking 
in  versatility,  and  lacking  in  facility  for  labor  and  business. 

Mr.  McCulloch  was  diligent,  industrious  and  conscien- 
tiously devoted  to  his  duties.  He  had  been  crippled  in  his 
administration  by  the  conflict  between  Congress  and  the 
President.  The  head  of  the  Treasury  needs  the  confidence 
of  the  President,  and  the  confidence  and  support  of  Congress. 
The  latter  Mr.  McCulloch  did  not  enjoy,  and  there  were 

^25 


126  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

indications  that  in  some  respects  he  (Hffered  with  the  Presi- 
dent. He  was  hampered  by  tlie  fact  that  any  change  in  the 
personnel  of  his  department  would  be  followed  by  inquiries 
from  one  party  or  the  other,  coupled  oftentimes  with  com- 
plaints and  criticisms. 

Great  evils  existed  in  the  revenue  system.  Tlie  contro- 
versy between  Congress  and  the  President  led  to  many  re- 
movals of  collectors  of  customs  and  of  internal  revenue. 
Their  places  were  supplied  by  persons  who  could  accom- 
modate themselves  to  both  parties.  The  President  was  made 
to  believe  that  the  applicants  were  his  friends,  but  that  their 
relations  with  Republican  Senators  were  such  that  they 
could  secure  confirmation.  When  nominated  these  men 
represented  themselves  as  good  Republicans  and  friendly  to 
the  Congressional  policy.  From  such  persons  an  honest  per- 
formance of  duty  could  not  have  been  expected.  Hence 
gross  frauds  upon  the  revenue  were  perpetrated  and  in  most 
instances  by  the  connivance  of  those  in  office. 

The  returns  for  the  last  year  of  Johnson's  administration, 
and  the  first  year  of  Grant's  administration,  showed  that 
the  loss  on  whisky  in  the  first  named  period  was  not  less 
than  thirty  million    dollars. 

That  there  were  other  great  losses  was  proved  by  the 
facts  that  the  payments  on  the  public  debt  were  less  than 
thirty  million  dollars  during  the  last  year  of  Johnson's 
administration  and  that  the  payments  were  one  hundred 
million  dollars  during  the  first  year  of  Grant's  administration, 
and  that  without  any  additional  sources  of  revenue. 

If  Mr.  McCulloch's  first  statement  had  been  true  in  the 
most  important  particulars,  his  second  claim  would  not  have 
been  open  to  debate.  It  was  true  that  the  department  had 
passed  the  point  when  there  was  any  exigency  for  money. 
The  Government  was  no  longer  a  borrower.  Payments  on 
the  public  debt  had  been  made,  but  otherwise  nothing  had 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        127 

been  done  to  relieve  the  country  of  the  interest  account,  nor 
was  the  credit  of  the  Government  such  that  any  practicable 
movement  in  that  direction  could  have  been  made. 

The  six  per  cent  coin  bonds  were  worth  only  83  or  84, 
and  no  step  had  been  taken  to  redeem  the  pledge  of  the 
Government  in  regard  to  the  Sinking  Fund  made  in  the 
act  of  February  25,  1862.  The  interest  account  exceeded 
one  hundred  and  thirty-three  million  dollars. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Clark  was  the  chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Printing 
and  Engraving  and  everything  was  confided  to  him.  It  is 
to  be  said  after  the  lapse  of  thirty  years  for  examination, 
that  not  a  tittle  of  evidence  has  been  found  warranting  any 
imputation  upon  his  integrity.  It  is  true  that  in  one  in- 
stance a  dishonest  plate  printer  took  an  impression  of  a 
bond  upon  a  sheet  of  lead  for  use  in  counterfeiting.  The 
possibility  of  such  an  act  was  due  to  a  lack  of  system  and 
not  to  any  want  of  fidelity  in  Mr.  Clark.  One  of  my  first 
acts  was  to  remove  Mr.  Clark,  and  then  to  open  a  new  set 
of  books.  The  printing  of  the  old  issues  was  suspended  per- 
manently, and  new  plates  were  prepared.  Mr.  Clark  had 
had  control  of  the  manufacture  of  the  paper,  the  control  of 
the  engravers,  the  control  of  the  plates,  the  control  of  the 
printers,  of  the  counters,  and  he  had  had  the  custody  of 
the  red  seal.  The  postal  currency  was  printed  under  his 
direction.  The  pieces  were  not  numbered,  they  were  due 
bills  only.  At  the  end  of  twenty  years  the  books  showed 
an  issue  of  about  fifteen  million  dollars  in  excess  of  the 
redemptions. 

His  power  was  unlimited  as  there  were  n(x  checks  upon 
him.  He  once  said  to  me  when  a  committee  of  Congress 
was  investigating  his  bureau,  during  Mr.  McCulloch's 
administration : 

"  They  will  never  find  a  five  cent  piece  out  of  the  way." 

After  the  discharge  of  Clark,   I   ordered  an  account  of 


128  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

stock  to  be  taken.  I  appointed  a  custodian  of  the  plates  after 
a  full  inventory  had  been  made,  whose  duty  it  was  to  deliver 
the  plates  each  morning  to  the  printers,  to  charge  them  to 
the  printers,  to  receive  them  at  the  close  of  the  day,  and  to 
settle  the  account  of  each  man.  A  special  paper  was  desig- 
nated and  public  notice  was  given  under  the  statute  by 
which  it  was  made  a  crime  for  any  person  to  make,  use  or 
have  in  his  possession  any  paper  so  designated.  The  paper 
was  manufactured  under  the  supervision  of  an  agent  of  the 
department,  who  was  authorized  to  count  and  receive  all 
the  paper  at  the  mills  and  to  answer  the  orders  for  its  de- 
livery to  the  printers.  The  paper  makmg  machine  was 
equipped  with  a  register  which  numbered  the  sheets  of 
paper.  That  record  was  compared  daily  with  the  number 
of  sheets  received  by  the  agent,  and  thus  the  Government 
was  protected  against  any  fraudulent  or  erroneous  issue  of 
paper.  Registers  were  also  placed  upon  each  printing  press. 
Each  morning  one  thousand  sheets  of  paper  were  delivered 
to  each  plate  printer,  and  at  the  close  of  work  his  printed 
sheets  were  counted  and  the  number  compared  with  the 
register  before  the  printer  was  allowed  to  leave  the  office.  In 
like  manner  there  was  an  accounting  with  each  counter.  The 
same  system  was  extended  to  the  managers  of  the  machines 
used  for  numbering  bonds  and  bank  notes.  The  registering 
machine  was  made  by  an  employee,  under  my  direction,  and 
at  the  cost  of  the  Government. 

Books  of  account  were  opened  upon  the  new  system. 
During  my  administration,  as  far  as  I  know,  there  was 
never  the  loss  of  a  sheet  of  paper  nor  was  there  a  fraud  com- 
mitted in  connection  with  the  business  of  the  bureau.  For 
further  security,  I  made  arrangements  by  which  two  bank 
note  companies  in  the  City  of  New  York  prepared  sets  of 
plates  for  a  single  printing  on  each  security,  the  red  seal 
being  imprinted  in  the  Treasury  Bureau.     By  this  arrange- 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        129 

ment  collusion  was  impossible.  The  expense  of  printing  was 
increased  by  this  arrangement,  but  it  seemed  to  be  more 
important  to  attain  absolute  security  against  fraud  than  to 
save  money.  My  successors  have  thought  otherwise  and  the 
printing  is  now  done  in  the  Treasury. 

During  my  term  I  ascertained  that  a  man  in  New  York 
who  had  once  been  employed  to  print  certain  securities,  had 
in  his  possession  the  plates  which  he  had  used  and  which 
he  claimed  as  his  property.  The  printing  had  been  done  in 
Mr.  Chase's  administration  and  there  was  no  agreement 
that  the  plates  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  Government.  The 
plates  were  obtained,  finally,  by  the  payment  of  a  sum  of 
money.  The  person  who  had  the  plates  was  an  old  man, 
and  there  was  danger  that  they  might  fall  into  the  hands 
of  dishonest  parties. 

When  I  was  in  the  Treasury  I  had  an  understanding  with 
Colonel  Whitely,  the  Chief  of  the  Secret  Service  that  I 
should  have  an  interview  with  any  expert  professional  crimi- 
nal who  might  fall  into  his  hands.  I  recall  an  interview 
with  one  such  criminal.  A  man  of  forty  years  and  a  gentle- 
man in  appearance,  and  a  professional  gentleman,  as  well  as  a 
criminal  by  profession. 

Upon  the  suggestion  of  Colonel  Whiteley  I  gave  his  pris- 
oner a  fresh  one  dollar  green-back  note.  He  took  a  phial  of 
liquid  from  his  pocket,  wet  one  half  of  the  paper  with  the 
liquid  and  in  my  presence  the  colors  disappeared  from  the 
paper.  Time  and  exposure  have  given  a  dark  tinge  to  the 
paper  which  was  a  pure  white  when  the  experiment  was 
ended.  By  the  use  of  the  liquid  the  counterfeiter  was  able 
to  obtain  a  piece  of  fibre  paper  on  which  a  bill  of  a  large 
denomination  might  be  printed,  given  only  the  engraving. 

The  revenue  marine  service  was  impaired  by  the  incom- 
petency of  many  of  the  officers,  and  its  efficiency  was  also 
impaired  by  the  size  and  quality  of  the  ships.    Some  of  them 


130  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

were  sailing  vessels,  most  of  them  were  of  wood,  and  the 
modern  ones  were  unnecessarily  large  in  size.  I  created  a 
commission  and  all  the  officers  except  a  few  who  were  too 
old  for  active  service  were  subjected  to  an  examination  and 
those  who  were  found  incompetent  were  discharged  from 
the  service.  Their  places  were  filled  by  young,  active  and 
well  qualified  men. 

A  commission  was  appointed  to  consider  and  report  upon 
the  size  of  the  vessels  that  were  best  adapted  to  the  service. 
Three  reports  from  successive  commissions  were  made  before 
a  satisfactory  result  was  reached.  Finally,  a  report  was 
made  by  Captain  Carlisle  Patterson,  that  was  approved  by 
me  and  by  a  committee  of  Congress.  The  recommendations 
of  that  report  have  been  followed,  as  far  as  I  know. 

At  that  time  the  Mint  Service  was  without  organization. 
Each  mint  and  assay  office  was  in  charge  of  an  officer  called 
superintendent,  but  there  was  no  head  unless  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  could  be  so  considered,  as  all  the  business 
came  to  him.  Upon  my  recommendation  Congress  author- 
ized the  appointment  of  a  Director  of  the  Mint,  and  upon 
my  recommendation  the  President  appointed  Dr.  Linderman, 
a  Philadelphia  Democrat,  but  a  gentleman  familiar  with  the 
service.  Under  him  the  service  was  organized  and  made 
systematic. 

When  I  took  charge  of  the  Treasury  Department  there  was 
no  system  of  bookkeeping  and  accounting,  that  was  uniform 
in  the  various  custom  houses  of  the  country.  Each  port  had 
a  plan  or  mode  of  its  own,  and  there  was  no  one  that  was  so 
perfect  that  it  could  be  accepted  as  a  model  in  all  the  ports. 
The  books  and  forms  were  made  and  prepared  at  the  several 
ports  and  often  at  inordinate  rates  of  cost. 

I  appointed  a  commission  of  Treasury  experts  to  prepare 
forms  and  books  for  every  branch  of  business.  Their  report 
was  accepted  and  since  that  time  the  modes  of  accounting 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        131 

have  been  the  same  at  all  the  ports.  The  stationery  pre- 
pared is  furnished  through  the  Government  printing  office, 
at  a  considerable  saving  in  cost,  and  clerks  in  the  accounting 
branch  of  the  Treasury  are  relieved  of  much  labor  in  the 
preparation  of  statements. 

Upon  the  transfer  of  Mr.  Columbus  Delano  from  the 
office  of  commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue  to  the  Secretary- 
ship of  the  Interior  Department,  the  question  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  successor  was  considered.  The  President  named 
General  Alfred  Pleasanton,  who  was  then  a  collector  of 
internal  revenue  in  the  city  of  New  York.  He  had  been  a 
good  cavalry  officer,  a  graduate  of  West  Point,  and  the 
President  was  attached  to  him.  My  acquaintance  with 
Pleasanton  was  limited,  but  I  was  quite  doubtful  of  his  fitness 
for  the  place.  My  opposition  gave  rise  to  some  delay,  but  at 
the  end  the  appointment  was  made,  the  President  saying  in 
reply  to  my  doubts  that  if  he  did  not  succeed  he  had  only 
to  say  so  to  the  General  and  he  would  leave  at  once.  The 
appointment  of  Pleasanton  was  urged  by  Mr.  Delano  and 
General  Horace  Porter  as  I  understood,  both  of  whom  were 
very  near  the  President. 

Pleasanton  had  been  informed  of  my  position,  and  al- 
though I  was  his  immediate  superior  he  did  not  call  upon 
me,  nor  did  he  ever,  except  upon  one  occasion,  come  into 
my  office,  unless  I  sent  for  him.  On  my  part  I  resolved  to 
avoid  any  criticism  upon  his  official  conduct  unless  compelled 
to  do  so.  He  entered  upon  his  duties  the  first  of  January, 
1 87 1,  and  although  in  several  instances  I  had  occasion  to 
control  his  purposes  in  regard  to  contracts  and  to  the  refund 
of  taxes,  I  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  mention  the  facts  to  the 
President.     In  May  the  President  said : 

"  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  Pleasanton  is  not 
succeeding  in  his  office." 

I  replied :   "  That  is  so. 


)f 


132  SIXTY  YEARS  !N  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

The  President  then  said :  "  I  will  try  to  find  some  other 
place  for  him,  and  I  will  then  ask  him  to  resign." 

The  President  went  to  Long  Branch  for  the  summer  and 
nothing  was  done.  I  had  very  early  discovered  that  Samuel 
Ward  was  exercising  a  good  deal  of  influence  over  the  com- 
missioner. It  was  his  policy  to  secure  influence  by  giving 
dinners  and  entertainments,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  he  ob- 
tained the  attendance  of  influential  members  of  Congress  and 
of  the  chief  officers  in  the  executive  departments.  He  once 
said: 

"  I  do  not  introduce  my  measures  at  these  entertainments, 
but  I  put  myself  upon  terms  with  persons  who  have  power." 

On  a  time  I  received  a  report  on  the  subject  of  refunding 
a  cotton  tax  amounting  to  about  $60,000.  It  bore  two 
endorsements — one  by  the  solicitor  "  Examined  and  disal- 
lowed, Chesley,"  and  one  by  the  commissioner  "  Allowed, 
Pleasanton." 

I  placed  the  report  in  my  private  drawer  with  the  purpose 
of  delaying  action  until  I  should  ascertain  where  the  propell- 
ing force  existed.  Having  occasion  to  go  to  Massachusetts 
I  was  absent  about  two  weeks.  Upon  my  return  Mr.  Ward 
came  into  my  ofifice  and  inquired  whether  I  had  received  the 
report.  I  replied  that  I  had  received  it.  "  Had  I  acted  upon 
it?"  I  said  that  I  had  not.  He  then  proceeded  to  say  that 
the  claim  was  a  good  one, — that  Mr.  Delano  had  examined 
it,  and  had  concluded  to  pass  it,  but  as  he  left  the  office  rather 
suddenly  he  had  neglected  to  act  upon  it.  Finally,  he  ex- 
pressed the  hope  that  I  would  act  without  delay.  I  had  al- 
ready decided  the  case  adversely  upon  the  ground  that  the 
allowance  was  unauthorized.  Therefore  I  had  only  to  en- 
dorse the  word  "  disallowed  "  with  my  signature  and  to  re- 
turn the  report  to  the  commissioner.  I  learned  that  the 
commissioner  was  engaged  through  the  agency  of  Ward  in 
making  a  contract  with  a  Connecticut  firm  that  was  in  my 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        133 

opinion  at  once  improvident  and  irregular.  This  act  led  me 
to  determine  to  end  the  difficulty  at  once.  I  went  to  the 
Executive  Mansion  and  asked  General  Babcock  to  go  to  Long 
Branch  and  say  to  the  President  that  the  business  of  the  In- 
ternal Revenue  Office  was  in  such  a  condition  that  immediate 
action  was  necessary.  As  a  result  the  President  returned 
that  night  and  early  the  next  morning  he  sent  for  me.  I 
stated  the  facts,  and  he  said  he  would  send  for  General 
Pleasanton  and  ask  him  to  resign.  At  the  interview  Pleasan- 
ton  asked  for  the  reasons.  The  President  said :  "  The  Secre- 
tary is  not  satisfied  with  your  administration."  Pleasanton 
replied :  "  I  think  I  can  make  everything  satisfactory  to  the 
Secretary."  The  President  replied,  naturally :  "  If  you  can, 
I  am  content."  Then  for  the  first  time  Pleasanton  came  to 
my  office  without  a  request  from  me.  I  invited  him  into  my 
private  room,  and  when  he  had  related  his  interview  with  the 
President,  I  said :  "  General,  if  this  were  a  personal  matter 
we  might  come  to  an  understanding,  but  your  administration 
of  the  office  has  been  a  failure  from  the  first  and  you  must 
resign."  This  ended  the  interview.  He  refused  to  resign 
and  the  President  removed  him.  He  appealed  to  the  Senate 
in  a  lengthy  communication,  but  without  effect.  Pleasanton 
may  have  been,  and  probably  was,  a  good  military  officer, 
but  he  did  not  possess  the  qualities  that  are  essential  in  the 
discharge  of  important  civil  trusts. 

Neither  from  my  experience  in  Congress  nor  in  the  Treas- 
ury Department  can  I  deduce  much  support  for  the  doc- 
trines of  the  class  of  politicians  called  Civil  Service  Reform- 
ers. From  their  statements  it  would  appear  that  every  mem- 
ber of  Congress  was  the  recipient  of  an  amount  of  patronage 
in  the  nature  of  clerkships  that  he  could  and  did  control.  I 
can  say  for  myself  that  as  a  member  I  never  asserted  any 
such  right  and  as  the  head  of  the  Treasury  I  can  say  that  no 
such  claim  was  ever  made  upon  me  by  any  member  of  Con- 


134  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

gress.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  was  by  George  W.  Julian. 
During  one  of  his  canvasses  for  re-nomination,  a  clerk  named 
Smith,  and  a  correspondent  of  a  journal  in  Mr.  Julian's  dis- 
trict, had  advocated  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Wilson  (Jere- 
miah). When  Mr.  Julian  secured  the  nomination,  Smith 
gave  him  his  support.  Nevertheless  when  Julian  returned  to 
Washington  he  demanded  Smith's  removal.  After  hearing 
all  the  facts  I  declined  to  act.  Julian  was  very  indignant,  and 
afterwards  from  the  Astor  House,  New  York,  wrote  me  a 
violent,  I  think  I  might  say  unreasonable  letter. 

The  public  mind  has  been  much  misled  by  the  statements 
in  regard  to  removals  and  appointments.  The  employees  in 
a  department  are  of  two  sorts.  There  is  a  class  who  are 
trained  men  in  the  places  that  they  occupy.  They  have  been 
in  the  service  for  a  long  period.  They  are  familiar  with  the 
laws  relating  to  their  duties,  and  to  the  decisions  of  the 
courts  thereon,  and  they  are  the  possessors  of  the  traditions 
of  the  offices.  They  are  as  nearly  indispensable  as  one  man 
can  be  to  another,  or  to  the  safe  management  of  business. 
The  head  of  a  department  cannot  dispense  with  the  services 
of  such  men.  All  thought  of  political  opinions  disappears. 
The  responsibility  of  a  change  in  such  a  case  is  very  great. 
No  prudent  administrator  of  a  public  trust  will  venture  upon 
such  experiments.  There  is  another  class  of  clerks  who  are 
employed  in  copying,  in  making  computations  in  simple 
arithmetic,  in  w-riting  letters  under  dictation,  and  in  other 
ordinary  clerical  work. 

The  public  interest  is  not  very  large  in  the  retention  of 
such  persons.  The  ordinary  graduates  of  the  high  schools 
of  the  country  are  competent  for  all  those  duties.  But  the 
clerks  of  this  class  are  not  removed  in  mass,  and  they  never 
will  be.  under  any  administration.  Even  a  fresh  man  at  the 
head  of  a  department  will  soon  find  that  the  fancied  political 
advantages  are  no  adequate  compensation  for  the  trouble 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        135 

that  he  assumes  and  the  risk  of  error  and  fraud  that  he  runs 
when  he  takes  new  and  untried  persons  in  the  place  of  those 
who  have  been  tested.  As  late  as  1870  about  thirty  per  cent. 
of  the  employees  of  the  Treasury  in  i860  were  in  office,  and 
this  notwithstanding  that  the  Treasury  furnished  recruits  for 
both  armies.  During  my  time  and  for  years  afterward,  the 
post  of  Assistant  Secretary  was  held  by  Mr-  Hartley,  a 
Democrat  from  the  days  of  Pierce  and  Buchanan.  He  was 
experienced,  diligent  and  entirely  trustworthy. 

Of  the  first  class  of  employees  it  is  to  be  said  that  there  is 
no  occasion  to  embalm  them  in  their  offices,  and  if  their  pay 
is  adequate  there  is  no  ground  for  placing  them  upon  the 
pension  rolls.  Their  duties  are  not  as  exacting  as  the  duties 
and  labors  of  men  in  corresponding  stations  in  private  life. 
As  to  the  second  class,  their  relations  to  the  public  are  such 
that  no  public  obligation  arises  except  to  pay  them  the 
stipulated  salaries. 

It  is  essential  to  a  proper  administration  that  the  Secretary 
or  the  President  should  have  the  power  of  removal,  and  it 
should  never  be  coupled  with  the  duty  of  making  a  statement 
of  the  cause.  Not  infrequently  a  statement  would  be  the 
occasion  of  scandal  and  of  suffering  by  innocent  parties. 
The  power  may  be  abused  as  every  power  may  be,  in  the 
hands  of  dishonest  or  corrupt  men.  This  is  one  of  the  perils 
to  the  public,  a  peril  from  which  no  government  can  escape. 
With  us  a  change  of  rulers  is  a  remedy  for  political  wrongs 
that  do  not  belong  to  the  catalogue  of  crimes.  It  may  be 
said,  however,  that  this  power  of  removal  gives  to  a  dis- 
honest administrator  of  a  department  the  opportunity  to 
secure  the  appointment  of  his  political  friends  in  the  place 
of  political  opponents  removed,  and  this  whatever  may  be 
the  method  of  appointment.  The  candidates  may  pass  the 
competitive  examination,  and  they  may  enter  upon  their 
duties,  but  their  chief  in  thirty  or  sixty  days  may  find  them 


136  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

lacking  in  practical  aptitude,  and  so  on,  until  those  of  the 
true  faith  shall  be  sent  forward  by  the  examining  board. 

Honest  administrators  of  official  duties  are  embarrassed  by 
the  system  and  dishonest  ones  evade  it.  The  system  may  be- 
come the  enemy  of  honesty  and  the  shield  of  hypocrisy. 
Only  this  is  needed.  When  the  appointing  power  has  desig- 
nated a  person  for  an  office,  let  that  person  be  examined  by  an 
independent  board  with  reference  to  character  and  those  quali- 
fications which  seem  to  be  a  fit  preparation  for  the  practical 
duties  of  the  place.  Whenever  the  power  of  appointment  and 
removal  is  abused  the  public  has  a  remedy  in  a  change  of 
administration.  And  herein  is  one  reason  why  the  Presi- 
dential term  should  not  be  extended.  There  may  be  many 
evils  of  administration  which  are  not  so  flagrant  as  to  warrant 
proceedings  for  impeachment.  Such  evils  may  be  borne  for 
brief  periods,  when  if  the  term  of  the  President  were  extended 
to  six  or  eight  years  the  dissatisfied  elements  of  society  might 
be  tempted  to  engage  in  revolutionary  movements.  Nor  is 
there  wisdom  in  limiting  the  Presidential  office  to  a  single 
term  in  the  same  person.  The  thought  that  one  has  a  future 
is  a  great  stimulus  to  careful  and  energetic  action  in  the  per- 
formance of  public  duties.  For  a  President  there  is  no  future 
except  a  re-election,  which  is  in  fact  an  approval  by  the  coun- 
try of  his  administration.  A  wise  man  will  strive  to  so 
conduct  affairs  as  to  merit  that  approval.  A  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives already  condemned  by  a  popular  verdict  is  but  a 
poor  guardian  of  the  rights  of  the  people;  and  a  defeated 
administration  performs  its  duties  in  the  most  indifferent 
manner.  After  a  defeat  appointments  will  be  made  and  acts 
done  that  would  not  have  been  hazarded  pending  an  election. 
It  is  true,  probably,  of  every  administration,  not  excepting 
that  of  General  Washington,  that  the  second  term  was  less 
acceptable  to  the  country  than  the  first.    Mr.  Lincoln  had  no 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        137 

second  term,  and  it  is  useless  to  speculate  upon  its  probable 
character,  if  he  had  lived  to  perform  its  duties. 

It  was  my  habit  to  be  at  the  Treasury  every  morning  at 
nine  o'clock,  and  I  usually  sent  immediately  for  one  or  more 
heads  of  division  or  chiefs  of  bureau  for  conference  upon 
some  matter  connected  with  their  duties.  By  frequent  inter- 
views I  acquired  such  knowledge  of  their  duties  and  of  pend- 
ing questions  tliat  I  always  had  a  reason  for  those  interviews. 
By  this  course  I  maintained  relations  of  familiarity  with  the 
officers  who  constituted  the  department  for  administrative 
purposes,  and  I  also  established  a  system  of  punctuality  in 
the  matter  of  attendance.  When  the  head  of  a  division  is 
tardy,  the  clerks  soon  venture  to  follow  his  example,  and  if 
he  is  prompt  they  are  ashamed  to  be  dilatory  unless  they 
have  an  adequate  excuse.  The  same  relation  exists  between 
the  bureau  officers  and  the  head  of  a  department. 

One  of  my  first  acts  in  the  nature  of  a  financial  policy 
was  to  establish  the  Sinking  Fund,  agreeably  to  the  act  of 
February  25,  1862.  Seven  years  had  passed  since  the  passage 
of  the  law  and  four  years  since  the  end  of  the  war  and  yet 
nothing  had  been  done  to  provide  for  the  redemption  of  the 
public  debt  agreeably  to  the  promise  that  had  been  made  when 
the  Government  was  a  large  borrower  of  money  and  when 
its  credit  was  depreciated,  seriously,  in  all  the  markets  of  the 
world.  In  my  first  annual  report,  December,  1869,  I  advised 
Congress  of  my  action  and  I  recommended  the  application  of 
the  bonds  that  I  had  then  purchased,  amounting  to  about  fifty- 
four  million  dollars,  to  the  Sinking  Fund,  until  the  deficiency 
then  existing  had  been  met.  The  step  that  I  then  took  was 
taken  in  obedience  to  the  law,  and  not  from  any  great  faith 
in  the  wisdom  of  the  Sinking  Fund  policy,  nor  was  it  from 
any  fear  that  the  Government  could  not  pay  its  debts  whether 
a  Sinking  Fund  was  or  was  not  created. 


138  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

The  faith  of  the  Government  had  been  pledged  to  a  par- 
ticular policy  and  I  thought  that  the  observance  of  that  policy 
was  both  wise  and  just.  A  government  cannot  afford  to 
disregard  the  terms  of  its  undertakings  even  if  a  violation 
or  neglect  does  not  work  harm  to  anyone.  The  payments  to 
the  Sinking  Fund  were  made  regularly  during  General  Grant's 
administration,  and  the  credit  of  the  Government  was  thereby 
somewhat  strengthened.  The  chief  element  of  strength  was 
in  the  fact  that  the  payments  were  such  as  to  astonish  the 
heavily  taxed  and  debt  burdened  States  of  Europe.  In  my 
four  years  of  service  as  the  head  of  the  Treasury  the  pay- 
ments on  the  debt  reached  the  enormous  sum  of  three  hundred 
and  sixty-four  million  dollars.  No  one  of  my  successors 
has  paid  an  equal  amount,  nor  has  an  equal  amount  been  paid 
in  any  other  equal  period  of  time  by  the  United  States  or  by 
any  other  government. 

At  the  time  I  entered  the  Treasury  the  price  of  gold  was 
at  abodt  forty  per  cent  premium  and  when  I  left  the  Treasury 
it  was  at  about  twelve  per  cent  premium.  In  the  summer  of 
1869  I  entered  upon  the  policy  of  selling  gold  and  buying 
bonds.  The  sales  and  purchases  were  made  by  the  Assistant 
Treasurer  in  New  York,  but  the  bids  were  reported  to  me 
and  by  me  accepted  or  rejected.  A  leading  criticism  was  this : 
It  was  claimed  that  the  simple  method  was  to  buy  bonds  in 
gold  and  thus  to  secure  the  bonds  by  one  transaction. 

This  policy  would  have  limited  the  number  of  purchasers 
of  gold  to  those  who  could  command  bonds.  By  the  policy 
pursued  the  sales  of  gold  were  open  to  anyone  who  had  money. 
The  gold  was  sold  for  currency,  and  the  bonds  were  pur- 
chased with  currency.  When  the  Treasury  announced  its 
purpose  to  purchase  bonds  the  price  advanced  in  the  market. 
The  President  remarked  to  me  jocularly  that  he  had  suffered 
by  not  knowing  what  the  department  was  about  to  do,  inas- 
much as  he  had  sold  bonds  a  few  days  too  early  and  at  a 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        139 

price  below  their  then  present  value.  During  my  service  as 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  I  carried  two  questions  only  to 
the  Cabinet  discussions — and  I  have  forgotten  one  of  the 
questions,  but  it  had  some  political  significance.  The  other 
arose  in  this  manner :  My  method  of  negotiating  the  sale  of 
new  bonds  under  the  Funding  Act  of  July,  1870,  had  been 
severely  criticized.  The  Government  was  compelled  to  give 
ninety  days'  notice  of  its  purpose  to  redeem  five-twenty  bonds, 
and  as  we  could  not  with  safety  make  a  call  until  we  had 
the  funds,  and  as  our  chief  source  was  the  proceeds  of  new 
bonds  we  could  not  call  until  a  sale  was  made.  As  a  conse- 
quence the  Government  was  a  loser  of  interest  on  all  called 
bonds  for  the  period  of  ninety  days.  I  arranged  with  the 
subscribers  for  new  bonds,  that  they  should  have  the  interest 
for  the  ninety  days  upon  a  deposit  of  old  bonds  as  security 
for  the  new  ones  subscribed  for  and  taken.  The  Government 
lost  nothing,  and  the  subscribers  were  benefited  greatly,  and 
thus  the  subscriptions  were  increased. 

During  the  campaign  of  1872  I  had  an  opportunity  to  nego- 
tiate a  new  loan  upon  the  same  basis.  Knowing  that  the 
proceeding  would  renew  criticisms,  I  thought  it  proper  to 
lay  the  case  before  the  President  and  Cabinet.  Upon  their 
advice  the  negotiations  were  suspended. 

Governor  Fish  on  more  than  one  occasion  complained  that 
the  Cabinet  were  as  ignorant  of  the  proceedings  and  purposes 
of  the  Treasury  as  was  the  outside  world.  His  complaints 
were  well  founded.  Much  of  the  business  aside  from  routine 
matters  was  secret.  For  example  my  orders  for  the  sale  of 
gold  and  the  purchase  of  bonds  were  never  issued  at  any 
other  time  than  Sunday  evening,  and  then  always  by  myself. 
The  orders  were  sent  to  the  Sub-Treasurer  at  New  York,  and 
given  to  the  Associated  Press  at  the  same  time.  Consequently, 
on  Monday  morning  all  the  country  was  informed,  and  under 
such  circumstances  that  the  chances  of  some  to  speculate  upon 


140  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  ignorance  of  others  were  reduced  to  the  minimum.  More- 
over, the  meml^ers  of  the  Cabinet  might  divide.  I  should 
then  be  compelled  to  act  upon  my  own  judgment,  and  against 
the  views  of  some  of  my  associates.  Again,  if  I  had  the 
support  of  the  President  and  Cabinet,  I  could  not  have  used 
the  fact  as  an  excuse  for  myself.  The  public  know  no  one 
but  the  Secretary.  I  chose  to  act  upon  my  own  judgment, 
knowing  that  there  was  no  one  to  share  the  responsibility  in 
case  of  failure. 

In  my  report  to  Congress,  in  December,  1869,  I  set  forth 
a  system  for  refunding  the  Public  Debt.  I  had  unfolded 
the  scheme  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  July 
1868.  I  had  already  taken  two  steps  preparatory  to  the 
undertaking.  First,  in  May,  1869,  I  established  the  Sinking 
Fund  under  the  Act  of  February  25,  1862.  Second,  by  the 
purchase  of  bonds  the  world  had  assurance  that  the  debt  would 
be  paid.  The  effect  of  these  two  measures  was  seen  in  the 
increasing  market  value  of  the  bonds.  In  other  words,  the 
credit  of  the  country  was  improving.  When  the  President 
was  preparing  his  message  of  December,  1869,  he  called  upon 
me  for  my  views  in  regard  to  the  Treasury,  and  I  furnished 
him  with  a  synopsis  of  my  plan  which  he  embodied  in  his 
message.  I  retained  a  copy  of  the  synopsis  and  that  copy 
is  in  the  hands  of  my  daughter.  Simultaneously  I  prepared 
a  bill  upon  the  basis  of  the  report  and  caused  the  same  to 
be  printed  upon  the  Treasury  press.  Upon  an  examination 
of  the  papers  on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  Senate  I  find  that 
cuttings  from  my  printed  bill  form  a  part  of  the  bill  which 
was  printed  by  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  which 
Senator  Sherman  was  chairman.  The  bill  was  changed  in 
details  but  not  in  principle.  The  Joan  was  in  three  parts  as 
my  bill  was  prepared.  A  portion  at  5  per  cent,  a  portion  at 
4  1-2  per  cent,  and  a  third  portion  at  4  per  cent.  The  division 
was  retained  in  the  statute,  but  the  amount  of  the  loan  at 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        141 

each  of  the  several  rates  was  changed.  By  my  bill  the  interest 
could  be  made  payable  in  Europe.  This  feature  was  stricken 
out  by  the  committees  in  the  House  or  the  Senate.  This 
change  I  overcame  or  avoided  ultimately  by  a  rule  of  the 
department  by  which  interest  on  registered  bonds  could  be 
made  payable  in  checks  of  the  Treasurer.  These  checks  are 
now  sent  to  all  parts  of  the  world  and  through  the  banking 
facilities  they  are  everywhere  as  good  as  gold,  subject  only 
to  the  natural  rates  of  exchange  between  different  countries. 
Since  that  time  railroad  companies  and  other  business  cor- 
porations have  accepted  the  system.  My  plan  of  making  the 
interest  on  the  bonds  payable  in  Europe  was  rejected  under 
the  lead  of  gentlemen  who  thought  it  involved  some  sort  of 
national  degradation.  My  object  was  to  make  the  loan  more 
acceptable  in  Europe  and  thus  to  extend  the  demand,  and 
consequently,  to  increase  the  value  of  our  securities. 

The  records  of  the  Treasury  Department  show  that  on  the 
23rd  day  of  December,  1869,  I  sent  to  General  Schenck  of 
the  House,  a  draught  of  a  bill  for  refunding  the  Public  Debt. 
The  same  records  show  that  on  the  19th  of  January,  1870,  I 
sent  to  Senator  Sherman  eight  copies  of  a  bill.  These  bills 
were  framed  in  conformity  to  the  plan  marked  out  in  my 
report  of  December,  1869.  Previous  to  the  preparation  of 
that  report  I  had  not  had  any  conference  with  any  member 
of  Congress  nor  with  any  other  person  in  regard  to  the  de- 
tails of  the  scheme. 

On  the  1 2th  of  July,  1870,  Mr.  Sumner  introduced  a  bill 
for  refunding  the  Public  Debt  (Sen.  S.  80).  As  might  have 
been  expected  it  was  not  a  practical  measure,  and  on  the  3rd 
day  of  the  following  February,  Mr.  Sherman  reported  the 
bill  of  Mr.  Sumner  in  a  new  draught.  A  single  copy  of  that 
bill  is  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  the  Senate,  and 
no  other  copy  can  be  found. 

This  bill  conforms  to  my  report,  and  upon  my  recollection 


142  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

it  is  the  bill  as  prepared  by  me.  The  division  of  the  loan 
conforms  to  my  recommendation  in  the  report,  and  it  pro- 
vides that  the  interest  may  be  made  payable  abroad.  Sub- 
sequently these  provisions  were  changed.  General  Schenck 
had  then  recently  returned  from  Europe  and  he  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  loan  could  all  be  negotiated  at  four  or  four 
and  one  half  per  cent  and  it  was  this  opinion  on  his  part 
which  led  to  delays.  The  bill  was  not  passed  till  July,  1870, 
at  the  very  moment  when  the  Franco-Prussian  War  opened. 
Had  the  bill  been  passed  in  March,  quite  large  negotiations 
could  have  been  made  in  April  of  that  year.  But  the  sale 
of  the  new  five  per  cent  bonds  was  an  undertaking  of  great 
difficulty.  It  is  now  impossible  to  realize  that  a  six  per  cent 
bond  was  not  worth  par  in  i869-'70.  At  that  time  the  lead- 
ing bankers  of  the  world  were  unwilling  to  engage  in  the 
undertaking.  The  Rothschilds  and  Barings  stood  aloof.  The 
Amsterdam  bankers  wrote  letters  of  inquiry,  but  they  did 
nothing  more.  Mr.  Morton,  of  the  firm  of  Morton,  Bliss 
&  Co.,  New  York,  was  inclined  to  engage  in  the  business, 
but  his  partner,  Mr.  Bliss  was  doubtful  of  the  success  of  the 
scheme,  and  they  therefore  stood  aside  when  the  first  nego- 
tiations were  attempted.  Finally  an  arrangement  was  made 
with  Jay  Cooke  &  Co.,  by  which  they  advertised  what  was 
called  a  popular  loan,  asking  for  a  subscription  to  the  five  per 
cent  bonds. 

Subsequently  I  advised  Congress  to  issue  four  per  cent 
fifty  year  bonds  as  a  basis  of  the  banking  system,  coupled 
with  an  ofifer  to  the  existing  banks  of  a  preference,  but  in 
case  any  bank  should  refuse  to  exchange  the  bonds  then  held 
by  such  bank,  its  charter  after  one  year  should  be  annulled 
and  its  banking  privileges  should  be  open  to  any  other  asso- 
ciation that  would  purchase  the  four  per  cent  bonds.  This 
proposition  aroused  the  hostility  of  the  national  banks  and 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        143 

forthwith  the  city  was  invaded  by  bank  officers  and  agents 
who  succeeded  in  defeating  the  bill. 

I  had  early  foreseen  that  the  Public  Debt  could  be  paid 
without  much  delay,  and  without  a  system  of  oppressive  tax- 
ation. In  July,  1863,  in  the  introduction  to  my  volume  on 
the  tax  system  of  the  country,  I  had  predicted  that  the 
revenues  would  be  equal  to  the  payment  of  interest  on  a  debt 
twice  as  large  as  the  Public  Debt  then  was,  together  with 
large  annual  payments  of  principal.  I  predicted  also  that 
these  payments  would  menace  the  national  banking  system. 
My  scheme  looked  for  the  perpetuation  of  that  system  for 
fifty  years  at  least.  The  banks  looked  upon  the  scheme  as 
a  hostile  project  and  they  were  therefore  led  to  defeat  a 
measure  which  in  fact  was  liberal  in  the  extreme.  At  that 
time  the  capital  of  all  the  national  banks  was  limited  to  three 
hundred  million  dollars.  Thus  did  the  banks  defeat  a  measure 
which  was  designed  to  secure  their  perpetuity  and  calculated 
to  promote  their  financial  interests.  They  acted  upon  the  idea 
that  the  credit  of  the  country  could  never  be  so  advanced  that 
a  four  per  cent  bond  would  be  worth  par. 

The  success  of  the  five  per  cent  loan  of  1871,  of  which  I 
give  a  full  account  elsewhere,  should  have  ended  the  contest 
in  regard  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States.  A  five  per 
cent  bond  had  been  sold  at  par  in  the  London  market.  The 
principal  of  the  Public  Debt  was  undergoing  a  monthly  re- 
duction and  the  gain  in  the  interest  account  was  sufficient 
to  guarantee  the  payment  of  the  principal  in  half  a  century. 
From  that  time  forward,  the  leading  bankers  of  Europe  and 
America  were  ready  to  co-operate  in  placing  the  remaining 
five  per  cents,  and  then  the  four  and  a  half  and  four  per 
cents. 

From  that  time  forward  the  credit  of  the  Government 
has  been  improving  constantly.     It  was  no  longer  difficult 


144  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

to  borrow  money  at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent,  and  with  the 
adjustment  of  our  controversy  with  Great  Britain  there  re- 
mained no  reason  to  question  the  rapid  progress  of  the  United 
States  in  wealth  and  population.  Indeed,  it  was  then  entirely 
feasible  for  the  Government  to  have  resumed  specie  payments, 
as  any  demand  upon  the  Treasury  for  gold  could  have  been 
met  with  the  proceeds  of  bonds  sold  in  Europe.  It  was  my 
opinion,  however,  that  it  would  be  wiser  to  delay  resumption 
until  the  balance  of  trade  should  be  so  much  in  our  favor 
that  specie  payments  could  be  maintained  by  our  own  re- 
sources. And  this  was  accomplished  in  less  than  six  years. 
It  is  with  a  state  as  it  is  with  an  individual.  With  an  es- 
tablished credit,  or  with  a  credit  improving  constantly  and 
an  income  in  excess  of  expenditures,  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
meeting  all  liabilities  as  they  mature.  Such  was  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Treasury  when  I  left  it  in  March,  1873.  In  March, 
1869,  the  Government  was  paying  interest,  measured  at  the 
gold  value  of  its  securities  at  the  rate  of  seven  per  cent.  In 
1873  the  rate  was  five  per  cent  or  less.  In  that  time  the 
net  Public  Debt  had  been  reduced  in  the  sum  of  three  hundred 
and  sixty-four  million  dollars,  and  the  interest  account  had 
been  reduced  about  thirty  million  dollars. 

When  I  was  engaged  in  placing  bonds  in  Europe,  a  dis- 
cussion arose  among  bankers  in  regard  to  the  conflict  of 
statements  as  to  the  amount  of  the  Public  Debt.  By  the 
reports  of  the  Treasurer,  which  were  the  basis  of  the  monthly 
statements,  the  debt  was  represented  by  the  securities  actu- 
ally issued  after  deducting  those  which  had  been  redeemed. 
By  the  report  from  the  Register's  Office  which  once  each  year 
corresponded  in  time  to  the  monthly  report,  the  balance  was 
widely  different.  These  facts  impaired  our  standing  finan- 
cially. Upon  the  register's  books  the  Government  was  charged 
with  every  issue  that  passed  out  of  his  office,  and  it  was  days, 
usually,  and  not  infrequently  it  was  weeks,  before  the  se- 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        145 

curities  passed  from  the  Treasury  into  the  hands  of  creditors 
or  purchasers  of  securities.    On  the  other  hand  the  Treasurer 
would  be  entitled  to  credit  for  redemptions  made  days  or 
weeks  before  the  evidence  of  such  payments  would  appear 
on  the  register's  books.     An  analogous  fact  exists  in  the 
discrepancy  between  a  depositor's  account  with  his  bank  and 
the  account  at  the  bank  as  long  as  there  are  outstanding 
checks.     The  books  would  not  agree  and  yet  each  might  be 
accurate.     As  it  was  a  necessity  of  the  situation  that  the 
business  of  the  Treasury  should  proceed  day  by  day  without 
interruption  and  as  it  was  difficult  to  explain  the  discrepancy 
to  the  many  inquirers,  I  ordered  Mr.  Allison,  the  register,  to 
accept  for  his  annual  reports  the  statement  of  the  Treasurer,  as 
his  statements  conformed  to  the  existing  facts  on  the  days 
when  the  statements  were  made.   The  register  protested  that 
the  order  was  not  justified  by  the  law,  and  that  was  the  truth 
although  there  was  no  law  forbidding  such  an  act.     The 
transaction,  including  my  order,  was  brought  before  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  as  far  as  I  know, 
the  question  of  the  legality  of  the  proceeding,  was  not  can- 
vassed, or  if  attention  was  directed  to  the  subject  the  com- 
mittee may  have  treated  it  as  an  act  in  the  public  interest  and 
from  which  no  injury  had  arisen.    Upon  these  facts,  Senator 
Henry  G.  Davis,  of  West  Virginia,  made  the  charge  that 
the  books  of  the  Treasury  had  been  altered  by  my  direction 
and  that  it  was  possible  that  some  great  fraud  had  been  per- 
petrated which  might  be  discovered  if  a  committee  were  ap- 
pointed to  investigate    the    Treasury.      A    committee    was 
granted,  of  which  Senator  Davis  was  a  member.    The  investi- 
gation was  a  failure  from  his  standpoint.     Indeed,  the  al- 
teration of  the  books  of  the  Treasury  would  require  the  col- 
lusive co-operation  of  many  persons,  and  evidence  of  the  fact 
of  the  alteration  would,  of  necessity,  become  known  to  Hun- 
dreds of  clerks. 


146  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  Davis  and  some  other  Democrats  implicated  me  in  an 
analogous  matter  which  they  tried  to  understand  but  did  not. 
The  Loan  Accounts  of  the  Treasury  Department  showed  that 
the  payments  on  the  Public  Debt  exceeded  the  receipts  from 
loans  in  the  enormous  sum  of  one  hundred  and  sixteen  million 
dollars.  I  appointed  a  committee  of  clerks  to  examine  the 
account  in  detail  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  the 
discrepancy  was  real  or  only  apparent.  The  fact  of  the  dis- 
crepancy was  reported  to  Congress  and  the  progress  made 
in  the  investigation  was  noted  in  the  appendix  to  the  Annual 
Reports.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  these  reports  were 
never  seen  by  Mr.  Davis,  and  hence  his  suspicion  that  an 
investigation  into  the  accuracy  of  the  Treasury  accounts 
would  show  an  alteration  of  Treasury  books,  and  of  course, 
for  some  improper  purpose. 

The  error  began  in  Mr.  Hamilton's  time,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  the  assumption  of  the  State  debts.  Bonds  were 
issued  for  those  debts  but  there  were  no  receipts  paid  into 
the  Treasury,  and  consequently  the  debit  side  of  the  account 
■was  a  blank.  When  the  bonds  were  paid  the  payment  be- 
came a  credit  on  the  loan  account.  In  after  times  bonds  were 
issued  and  sold  below  par.  The  account  was  charged  with 
the  receipts  and  upon  pa^-ment  the  loan  account  was  credited 
with  the  full  amount  paid.  In  some  cases  the  discrepancy 
was  augmented  by  the  purchase  of  bonds  and  the  payment 
of  a  premium,  as  was  done  in  the  second  term  of  General 
Jackson.  The  investigation  showed  that  the  discrepancy  was 
only  apparent,  and  the  criticisms  and  complaints  ceased. 

During  my  administration  of  the  Treasury  Department,  the 
government  of  the  Territory  of  Alaska  was  in  my  hands. 
The  legislation  of  Congress  was  brief  and  indefinite  and  the 
only  officers  were  collectors  of  customs,  treasury  agents  and 
the  revenue  cutter  officers.  The  principal  topics  of  thought 
were  the  exclusion  of  liquors  and  firearms  and  the  protection 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        147 

of  the  fur  seal  fishery.  During  the  session  of  the  Forty-first 
Congress  a  bill  was  passed  which  required  the  Secretary  to 
lease  the  seal  fishery  to  the  best  bidder,  with  a  preference  to 
the  company  which  was  then  engaged  in  the  fishery.  On 
the  question  of  the  nature  of  the  preference  I  took  the  opinion 
of  the  Attorney-General  in  advance  of  the  contract.  At  that 
time  I  was  opposed  to  any  system  of  leasing  and  I  so  advised 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  a  report  upon  the  subject. 
Congress,  however,  adopted  the  system  of  leasing  and  upon 
experience  that  system  was  shown  to  be  more  advantageous  to 
the  country.  The  value  of  the  fur  seal  fishery  depends  upon 
the  market  for  the  dressed  furs,  and  the  value  of  the  dressed 
furs  depends  upon  the  fashions,  and  the  fashions  are  manipu- 
lated by  producers  of  the  various  competing  goods.  The  Gov- 
ernment could  never  engage  in  the  business  of  promoting 
fashions  and  training  the  markets.  Fur  seal  skins  have  only 
a  moderate  commercial  value  when  the  fashion  is  not  with 
them. 

The  question  of  the  claim  on  Behring  Sea  was  not  then 
much  considered.  By  the  law  of  nations  it  is  difficult  to 
maintain  the  position  that  that  vast  body  of  salt  water  can 
be  treated  as  a  closed  sea,  but  there  are  peculiarities  which 
distinguish  it  from  other  bodies  of  water  as  the  Mediterranean 
Sea  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  which  are  partially  enclosed. 

Russia  for  a  long  time  was  the  possessor  of  the  adjacent 
mainland  and  of  the  islands  which  mark  the  limits  and  in 
a  degree  enclose  the  sea.  That  country  claimed  jurisdiction 
over  the  water.  That  claim  was  known  and  its  validity  was 
not  disputed  seriously.  By  the  treaty  Russia  ceded  about 
one  half  of  the  sea  to  the  United  States.  Russia  and  the 
United  States  are  the  countries  directly  interested.  England 
has  no  territorial  rights  and  therefore  she  has  no  interest  that 
is  not  common  to  other  nations.  The  United  States  and 
Russia  are  interested  in  the  seal  fishery  which  can  be  pre- 


148  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

served  only  by  the  protection  of  the  animals  in  Behring  Sea. 
It  may  be  claimed  fairly  that  Russia  and  the  United  States 
have  property  in  these  animals  due  to  the  fact  that  they  gather 
upon  the  territory  of  the  countries  at  certain  seasons  of  the 
year.  At  other  seasons  they  roam  over  the  water  as  other 
animals  roam  over  the  land.  They  are,  at  least,  partially 
domesticated.  They  are  accustomed  to  the  presence  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  islands  which  they  occupy  as  breeding 
grounds  and  which  they  visit  annually.  Moreover,  England 
has  an  interest  in  the  preservation  of  the  fishery.  The  skins 
are  dressed  in  London,  and  thus  far  no  one  has  been  found, 
either  in  Europe  or  in  the  United  States,  who  can  compete 
with  the  London  workmen.  For  the  purpose  of  protecting 
and  preserving  the  seal  fishery,  Behring  Sea  ought  to  be 
treated  as  a  closed  sea.  For  general  commercial  purposes 
it  may  be  used  as  other  parts  of  the  ocean  are  used. 

At  a  time,  while  I  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  when 
I  was  detained  at  my  lodgings  by  a  slight  illness,  I  received  a 
visit  from  William  E.  Dodge  a  New  York  merchant  and  an 
importer  of  tin,  whom  I  had  known  some  years  before  when 
I  was  a  member  of  Congress.  He  said  that  he  had  called  to 
see  me  in  regard  to  charges  against  his  house  preferred  by 
the  revenue  officers  relating  to  the  importation  of  tin.  I  said, 
what  was  true,  that  I  had  not  heard  of  the  charges  and  that 
I  had  never  suspected  his  house  of  any  wrong-doing  in  their 
business.  His  statement  in  reply  was  a  great  surprise  to  me. 
He  said  that  if  there  was  anything  which  appeared  to  be 
wrong,  or  that  was  in  fact  a  violation  of  law,  the  error  or 
wrong  was  unintentional — that  he  and  his  partners  intended 
to  act  always  in  good  faith.  He  then  stated  that  the  claim 
amounted  to  more  than  two  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and 
he  proposed  then  and  there  to  pay  the  amount  claimed,  coupled, 
however,  with  the  condition  that  the  payment  should  be  kept 
secret.     I  replied  that  I  could  not  take  the  money  upon  such 


THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT  IN  1869        149 

terms  and  that  secrecy  was  impossible.  Upon  his  statement 
there  were  three  persons  besides  ourselves  who  had  knowledge 
of  the  existence  of  the  charges  and  the  payment  of  money 
must  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Treasury  officials.  I 
then  said: 

"  Mr.  Dodge,  you  cannot  afford  to  pay  this  money.  If 
you  are  innocent  you  should  contest  the  matter  in  the  courts, 
and  if  you  convince  the  judge,  even  if  you  are  technically 
wrong,  that  there  was  no  intent  to  defraud  the  Government 
the  Secretary  can  remit  all  the  penalty,  leaving  you  to  pay 
the  duty."  His  counsel,  if  they  were  competent,  must  have 
given  him  similar  advice  and  yet  he  paid  voluntarily,  about 
two  hundred  and  seventy-six  thousand  dollars  to  the  officials 
in  New  York,  of  which  he  and  his  friends  proceeded  to  com- 
plain. There  was  a  suit,  but  it  was  the  duty  of  the  firm  to 
contest  the  claim  of  the  Government,  if  they  had  a  defence. 
And  if  they  had  had  a  defence  they  were  in  no  danger  even 
if  they  had  violated  the  law  ignorantly,  for  no  Secretary 
would  have  allowed  honest  men  to  suffer  for  an  ignorant 
violation  of  the  revenue  laws.  Senator  Edmunds  placed  upon 
the  records  of  the  Senate  a  full  statement  of  the  case. 


XXXIV 

THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "CRIME  OF  1873" 

OF  the  many  measures  o-f  my  administration  of  the 
Treasury  Department,  the  Mint  Bill  of  1873  is  the 
only  one  which  has  been  made  a  party  issue,  and 
which  has  entered  permanently  into  the  policy  of  the  country. 

In  the  month  of  March,  in  the  year  1869,  I  came  to  the 
head  of  the  Treasury  Department.  At  an  early  day  my  atten- 
tion was  directed  to  the  disordered  condition  of  the  mint 
service,  which  was  then,  as  it  ever  had  been,  without  a  re- 
sponsible head.  The  proceedings  at  the  mints  were  unsyste- 
matic, and  I  resolved  upon  an  attempt  to  codify  the  laws  and 
to  place  the  administration  in  the  hands  of  a  recognized, 
responsible  officer.  President  Grant  appointed  John  Jay  Knox 
comptroller  of  the  currency.  For  many  years  Mr.  Knox  had 
held  the  office  of  deputy  comptroller.  He  had  been  a  careful, 
constant  student,  and  he  was  already  a  recognized  authority 
in  financial  matters. 

I  appointed  Mr.  Knox  commissioner  to  codify  the  mint 
laws  and  to  suggest  alterations.  He  was  assisted  by  Dr.  Lin- 
derman,  then  an  eminent  expert  in  the  theory  and  practice 
of  coinage,  by  Mr.  Patterson,  superintendent  of  the  mint  at 
Philadelphia,  and  by  others. 

When  the  codification  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  mint 
service  had  been  completed  the  statute,  as  passed,  contained 
seventy-one  sections,  including  a  number  of  new  provisions. 

150 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "CRIME  OF  1873"     ^S^ 

The  political  and  personal  controversy  of  twenty  years  and 
more  was  directed  to  a  single  section,  which  was  in  these 
words :  "  No  coins,  either  of  gold,  silver,  or  minor  coinage, 
shall  hereafter  be  issued  from  the  mints  other  than  those  of 
the  denominations,  standards  and  weights  herein  set  forth." 
The  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar  piece  was  discontinued  in  the 
bill  as  prepared  by  the  commissioners  and  the  purpose  to  dis- 
continue its  coinage  was  thus  announced  in  the  report  that 
was  made  to  Congress : 

"  The  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar  piece,  the  history  of 
which  is  here  given,  is  discontinued  in  the  proposed  bill. 
The  present  gold  dollar  piece  is  made  the  dollar 
unit  in  the  proposed  bill,  and  the  silver  dollar  piece  is  dis- 
continued." 

In  1873  I  had  come  to  believe  that  it  was  wise  for  every 
nation  to  recognize,  establish,  and  maintain  the  gold  standard. 
I  was  of  the  opinion  then,  as  I  am  of  the  opinion  now,  that 
nations  cannot  escape  from  the  gold  standard  in  all  inter- 
state transactions.  The  value  of  every  article  is  resolved 
finally  by  the  ascertainment  of  its  value  in  gold.  Silver  or 
paper  may  be  used  for  domestic  purposes,  but  the  value  of 
that  silver  or  paper  is  determined  by  its  value  in  gold. 

In  America,  as  in  England,  all  the  attempts  to  fix  a  ratio 
between  gold  and  silver  coins  and  to  maintain  that  ratio  in 
business  had  failed,  and  hence  it  was  that  I  determined  to 
abandon  the  idea  of  a  double  standard,  reserving  in  mind, 
however,  the  possibility  that  an  agreement  by  commercial 
countries  might  overcome  the  difficulty.  That  possibility 
has  now  disappeared.  The  history  of  the  United  States  is 
an  instructive  history.  The  coin  ratio  between  gold  and  silver 
was  fixed  in  Mr.  Hamilton's  time  and  with  the  concurrence 
of  Mr.  Jefferson. 

In  1870  silver  was  at  a  premium  upon  the  legal  ratio 
between  gold  and  silver  coins,  and  such  had  been  the  fact 


152  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

from  the  year  1837,  and  probably  from  the  year  1792.  In- 
deed, there  has  never  been  a  day,  from  the  organization  of 
the  government,  when  the  actual  standard  was  silver.  Until 
the  act  of  1878  was  passed,  silver  coins  had  had  no  appre- 
ciable influence  upon  the  volume  of  currency  or  the  business 
of  the  country.  The  total  coinage  of  silver  dollars  had  been 
8,000,000  pieces  only.  The  coinage  was  suspended  in  1805 
or  1806,  and  the  silver  dollars  had  been  exported  or  they 
had  disappeared  in  melting  pots.  Such  was  the  commercial 
demand  for  American  silver  coins  that  in  1853  Congress 
authorized  the  debasement  of  the  subsidiary  silver  coins  as 
the  only  means  of  securing  their  circulation. 

It  is  quite  doubtful  whether  in  the  year  i860  there  was 
a  person  living  who  had  seen  an  American  silver  dollar  doing 
duty  in  the  channels  of  trade.  From  1806  to  1873  the  busi- 
ness standard  of  the  country  was  the  gold  standard.  Silver 
had  been  recognized  in  the  Coinage  Act,  but  practically  it 
had  not  played  any  part  in  the  financial  policy  or  fortunes  of 
the  country. 

The  choice  of  gold  as  the  standard  was  not  due  to  hos- 
tility to  silver  or  to  the  silver  mining  interests,  but  to  the 
well  grounded  opinion  that  gold  was  a  universal  currency, 
while  in  some  countries,  as  in  England  and  Germany,  silver 
coins  were  not  a  debt-paying  currency. 

These — within  the  limits  of  a  statement — are  the  reasons 
for  the  demonetization  of  the  silver  dollar  and  the  adoption 
of  the  single  gold  standard.  The  measure  was  in  accord  with 
my  policy,  and  it  was  in  accord  with  the  unbiassed  judgment 
of  the  commission. 

It  is  a  singular  instance  in  legislative  proceedings  that  a 
measure  that  had  no  active  support  and  that  was  free  from 
opposition  at  its  enactment  should  be  assailed  vigorously 
after  the  lapse  of  years  and  through  a  long  period  of  time. 
The  measure  was  soon  followed  by  the  depreciation  of  silver 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "  CRIME  OF  1873  "    I53 

and  coincident  with  that  change  came  the  attacks  upon  the 
Mint  Bill,  and  the  denunciation  of  the  "  Crime  of  1873." 

The  charges  were  two  : 

First:  The  authors  of  the  change  had  been  corrupted  by 
English  gold  through  one  Ernest  Seyd,  a  writer  on  economic 
topics.  It  was  alleged  that  Seyd  came  to  this  country  at 
the  time  the  measure  was  under  consideration.  Seyd  was  not 
living  when  the  charges  were  made,  but  the  fact  of  a  visit 
to  this  country  was  denied  by  his  son.  Hon.  Samuel  Hooper 
was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Coinage.  In  the  search 
for  information  Mr.  Hooper  invited  Mr.  Seyd  to  give  him 
his  opinion.  Seyd  was  a  writer,  a  man  of  good  reputation, 
and  a  bimetallist.  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hooper  which  is  still 
in  existence,  and  which  is  printed  in  the  Congressional  Record, 
Seyd  condemned  the  demonetization  of  the  silver  dollar.  His 
letter  was  dated  at  London,  February  17,  1872. 

The  second  charge  was  secrecy.  The  answer  to  this  charge 
was  to  be  found  in  historical  facts. 

The  evidence  is  this :  Mr.  Knox's  report  contained  two 
specific  statements  that  it  was  a  purpose  of  the  bill  to  pro- 
hibit the  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar;  the  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  for  the  year  1872  made  a  specific  recom- 
mendation to  that  effect;  the  bill  was  printed  six  times;  it 
was  considered  in  each  House  during  the  Forty-first  and 
Forty-second  Congresses;  the  precise  question  in  contro- 
versy was  the  subject  of  discussion,  and  two  years  and  ten 
months  were  given  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill. 

The  bill  was  discussed  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Mr.  Reed  has  stated  that  the  report  of  the  debate  covers 
one  hundred  and  ninety-six  columns  of  the  Congressional 
Record.  Senator  Jones,  in  his  report  of  1876,  as  chairman 
of  the  Silver  Commission,  refers  to  the  debate  in  these  words ; 
"  In  the  brief  discussion  on  the  bill  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, the  principal  reason  assigned  in  favor  of  those 


154  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

sections  which  interdicted  tb.e  future  coinage  of  the  silver 
dollar  was  that  its  value  was  three  per  cent  greater  than 
the  value  of  the  gold  dollar."  Thus  Senator  Jones  admits 
that  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Representatives  was  upon 
the  question  of  the  abolition  of  the  silver  dollar,  and  he  rec- 
ognizes his  knowledge  of  the  fact  of  the  debate. 

Finally  the  bill  passed  the  Senate  without  one  dissenting 
vote. 

The  downfall  of  silver  has  not  been  due  to  any  legislation 
in  America  or  Europe,  nor  to  any  decrees  or  despotic  policy 
in  Asia,  but  to  the  inventive  faculties  of  one  Charles  Bur- 
leigh, of  Fitchburg,  Massachusetts,  the  inventor  of  the  power 
drill. 

If  through  him  many  silver  mines  have  been  rendered 
valueless,  so  it  is  to  him  that  the  world  is  indebted  for  a 
new  application  of  force  by  which  mountains  are  penetrated 
and  mining  in  all  its  forms  is  carried  on  at  one  fourth  part 
of  the  former  cost.  Every  step  in  civilization,  every  advance 
movement  that  we  call  progress,  is  a  peril  to  many  and  a 
ruin  to  some.  By  one  stroke  of  genius,  and  limiting  our 
thoughts  to  one  only  of  its  many  consequences  we  may  say 
that  Burleigh  has  made  gold  so  abundant  and  cheap  that  all 
substitutes  for  a  currency  from  wampum  to  silver  must  soon 
disappear. 

There  is  historical  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  silver  mining  interest  had  sufficient  and 
worthy  reasons  for  assenting  to  the  suspension  of  the  silver 
dollar.  In  1872  silver  was  at  a  slight  premium  as  compared 
with  gold.  Therefore  the  privilege  of  coinage  of  the  dollar 
was  of  no  advantage  to  the  owners  of  bullion. 

The  Mint  Bill  had  a  new  and  attractive  feature.  It  pro- 
vided for  the  coinage  of  a  dollar  that  was  to  contain  420 
grains  of  standard  silver,  and  was  to  be  known  as  the  trade 
dollar. 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "  CRIME  OF  1873  "    i55 

This  passage  may  be  found  in  my  report  to  Congress  for 
the  year  1872 : 

"  Therefore,  in  renewing  the  recommendations  heretofore 
made  for  the  passage  of  the  Mint  Bill,  I  suggest  such  alter- 
ations as  will  prohibit  the  coinage  of  silver  for  circulation 
in  this  country,  but  that  authority  be  given  for  the  coinage 
of  a  silver  dollar  that  shall  be  as  valuable  as  the  Mexican 
dollar  and  to  be  furnished  at  its  actual  cost." 

The  dollar  was  coined  and  it  was ,  known  as  the  Trade 
Dollar.     It  contained  420  grains  of  standard  silver. 

The  Mexican  dollar  which  contained  about  416  grains,  was 
then  sold  at  a  premium,  and  it  was  used  extensively  in  the 
China  and  India  trade. 

It  was  my  expectation  and  the  expectation  of  all  con- 
cerned, that  the  trade  dollar,  from  its  added  value,  would 
take  the  place  of  the  Mexican  dollar  in  the  immense  trade 
of  the  East.  My  own  confidence  was  great.  Indeed,  the 
thought  of  failure  never  occurred  to  me.  Unfortunately,  the 
stolidity  of  the  Chinese  and  the  force  of  habit  among  that 
people  were  not  considered  by  us.  From  long  use  they  had 
become  accustomed  to  the  Mexican  dollar.  They  refused  our 
trade  dollar,  notwithstanding  its  greater  weight. 

We  coined  and  put  into  circulation,  at  home  and  abroad, 
about  36,000,000  pieces,  many  of  which  were  afterwards 
recoined  as  legal  tender  dollars  under  a  special  act  of  Con- 
gress. 

With  the  failure  of  that  undertaking  came  the  crusade 
against  the  act  of  1873.  Whether  the  two  events  sustained 
to  each  other  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  I  cannot 
say. 

The  suggestion  that  Senator  Stewart  of  Nevada  was  as- 
senting to  the  demonetization  of  the  silver  dollar  derives 
support  from  the  fact  that,  in  the  month  of  February,  1874, 
he  indorsed  the  gold  standard  in  two  speeches,   delivered. 


156  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

respectively,  on  the  nth  and  20tli  days  of  that  month. 
On  the  nth  he  said:  "  I  want  the  standard  gold,  and  no 
paper  money  not  redeemable  in  gold."  On  the  20th  he  added  : 
"  Gold  is  the  universal  standard  of  the  world.  Everybody 
knows  what  a  dollar  in  gold  is  worth." 

It  is  certain  that  in  the  month  of  February,  1874,  when 
the  contents  of  the  Mint  Bill  w'ere  in  the  public  statutes, 
the  demonetization  of  the  silver  dollar,  and  the  recognition 
of  the  gold  dollar  as  the  unit  of  value,  had  not  affected  the 
judgment  nor  disturbed  the  sensibilities  of  the  advocates  of 
silver. 

I  dismiss  this  branch  of  the  subject  with  the  observation 
that  the  act  of  1873  placed  the  United  States  in  a  commanding 
position  in  regard  to  the  use  of  silver.  If  that  metal  had 
continued  to  maintain  its  supremacy  upon  the  ratio  then 
established  between  gold  and  silver  coins,  there  could  have 
arisen  no  demand  for  the  coinage  of  silver.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  silver  should  depreciate,  the  government  might,  at  its 
pleasure,  use,  or  it  might  decline  to  use,  that  metal  as  coin. 

I  now  pass  to  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  controversy  not 
heretofore  considered  in  public  discussions,  from  which  it 
will  appear  that  the  trusted  representatives  of  the  silver  in- 
terest put  aside  the  most  inviting  opportunity,  if  not  the  only 
opportunity,  for  the  adoption  of  the  bimetallic  system  by  the 
commercial  nations  of  the  world. 

The  act  of  1873  prepared  the  way  for  the  use  of  silver  by 
the  commercial  nations  of  the  world,  upon  an  agreed  ratio 
with  gold,  if  indeed,  the  possibility  of  such  an  arrangement 
ever  existed.  We  were  upon  a  gold  basis;  the  balance  of 
trade,  by  groups  of  years,  w^as  in  our  favor;  we  had  a  gold 
revenue  from  customs  of  about  $200,000,000,  and  the  excess 
of  Treasury  receipts  over  expenditures  was  nearly  $100,- 
000,000  a  year. 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "  CRIME  OF  1873  "    157 

If  we  had  chosen  to  accumulate  gold  and  postpone  pay- 
ments upon  the  Public  Debt,  we  could  have  brought  the 
nations  of  the  earth  to  our  feet. 

It  was  under  circumstances  thus  favorable  for  negotia- 
tions for  the  use  of  silver  that  the  Silver  Commission  of 
1876  was  constituted,  and  authorized,  among  other  things, 
to  inquire  "  into  the  policy  of  the  restoration  of  the  double 
standard  in  this  country,  and  if  restored,  what  the  legal 
relation  between  the  two  coins  of  silver  and  gold,  should 
be." 

This  authority  opened  a  way  for  the  introduction  of  a 
policy  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  looking  to  an  ar- 
rangement for  the  use  of  silver  by  the  states  of  Europe,  and 
on  that  authority  the  commission  dealt  with  the  project  of 
an  international  bimetallic  system. 

The  commission  consisted  of  eight  persons.  Senator  Jones 
was  the  chairman,  and  Mr.  Bland,  of  Missouri,  was  an  in- 
fluential member.  It  was  my  fortune  to  be  of  the  commission 
and  it  was  my  fortune  also  to  be  alone  in  opinion  upon  the 
main  questions  that  were  treated  in  the  reports. 

The  majority  of  the  commission  consisted  of  Messrs.  Jones, 
Bogy,  Willard,  Bland  and  Groesbeck.  They  favored  the  re- 
monetization  of  the  silver  dollar,  and  that  without  delay. 

Of  the  points  made  in  their  report,  I  mention  these.  They 
said :  "  The  supply  of  gold  is  diminishing,  being  now  but 
little  more  than  one  half  what  it  was  in  1852,  and  is  always 
so  fitful  and  irregular  from  the  method  of  its  production 
that  it  is  ill-suited  to  be  a  sole  measure  of  value." 

This  statement  as  a  statement  of  an  existing  fact  was  wide 
of  the  truth,  and  as  a  prophecy  it  was  as  fallacious  as  are 
the  prophecies  which  predict  the  destruction  of  the  world. 
From  185 1  to  1855  the  annual  gold  product  of  the  world  was 
6,410,324  ounces.    From  1876  to  1880  the  annual  gold  prod- 


158  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

uct  of  the  world  was  5,543,110  ounces.  The  gold  product 
of  the  latter  period  was  eighty-six  per  cent  of  the  gold  pro- 
duct of  the  former  period. 

Far  wide  of  the  truth  were  the  predictions  of  the  majority 
in  regard  to  the  future  product  of  gold.  For  the  year  1894 
the  product  was  8,737,788  ounces,  or  about  thirty-seven  per 
cent  over  the  product  of  1 851 -'55. 

They,  the  majority,  said :  "  No  increase  in  the  yield  of 
silver  in  the  immediate  future  seems  upon  the  whole  to  be 
probable."  The  commission  said  further:  "The  exchanges 
of  the  world,  and  especially  of  this  country,  are  continually 
and  largely  increasing;  while  the  supplies  of  both  the  precious 
metals,  taken  together,  if  not  diminishing,  are  at  least  sta- 
tionary, and  the  supply  of  gold,  taken  by  itself,  is  falling 
ofif." 

Each  of  these  two  statements  in  regard  to  the  precious 
metals  was  a  serious  error,  and  in  their  controlling  influence 
upon  the  judgment  of  the  commission  they  were  fatal  errors. 

The  gold  product  of  the  world  in  1876  was  5,016,488 
ounces.  In  1894  the  product  had  risen  to  8,737,788  ounces, 
a  gain  of  more  than  seventy-four  per  cent  in  the  short  period 
of  eighteen  years. 

In  1876  the  product  of  silver  was  67,753,125  ounces,  and 
in  1894  it  was  167.752,561  ounces,  a  gain  of  about  147  per 
cent  in  eighteen  years. 

Upon  these  errors  the  majority  of  the  commission  based 
a  policy  by  which  the  only  opportunity  that  the  country  ever 
had  for  the  establishment  of  a  bimetallic  system  which  should 
include  the  commercial  nations  of  Europe,  was  put  aside  and 
forever  lost. 

If,  in  1876,  I  had  anticipated  the  immense  increase  in  the 
product  of  silver,  I  might  have  hesitated,  but  in  the  view 
that  I  was  then  able  to  command  I  had  great  confidence  that 
a  bimetallic  arrangement  might  be  secured. 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "  CRIME  OF  1873  "    ^59 

The  majority  of  the  commission  favored  bimetallism  but 
they  demanded,  first,  the  remonetization  of  the  silver  dollar. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  claimed  that  all  thought  of  the  further 
use  of  silver  should  be  postponed  until  the  attempt  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  other  countries  had  been  tried  faithfully. 

The  policy  of  the  majority  of  the  commission  prevailed, 
and  it  was  consummated  by  the  Statute  of  1878,  which  was 
passed  over  the  veto  of  President  Hayes,  and  which  author- 
ized the  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar. 

When  we  had  accepted  silver,  when  we  had  abandoned  the 
vantage  ground  that  we  had  occupied,  it  was  in  vain  that  we 
solicited  the  co-operation  of  England,  France  and  Germany. 
The  adoption  by  the  United  States  of  a  silver-using  policy 
led  the  statesmen  of  those  countries  to  anticipate  the  more 
extended  and  continuous  use  of  silver  leaving  to  them  a  mo- 
nopoly of  gold,  while  we  should  sink  financially  to  the  level 
of  the  degraded  states  of  the  world.  That  catastrophe  we 
have  escaped  after  an  experience  of  twenty-five  years,  and 
then  only  by  the  combined  efforts  of  the  two  great  political 
parties. 

I  submit  brief  extracts  from  the  report  of  the  majority  of 
the  commission  and  from  my  individual  report  of  1876,  that 
our  relative  positions  may  be  understood. 

The  commission  said :  "  We  believe  that  the  remonetization 
of  silver  in  this  country  will  have  a  powerful  influence  in 
preventing,  and  probably  will  prevent,  the  demonetization  of 
silver  in  France  and  in  other  European  countries  in  which 
the  double  standard  is  still  legally  and  theoretically  main- 
tained." 

Again  the  majority  said :  "  It  may  be  added  that  a  legisla- 
tive remonetization  on  the  relation  to  gold  if  15.5  to  i  ac- 
complishes without  delay  all  the  objects  of  the  proposition  for 
an  international  conference,  which  is  urged  from  various 
quarters." 


i6o  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

That  I  may  place  myself  where  I  stood  in  1876  I  present 
brief  extracts  from  my  report  of  that  year. 

First  I  said :  "  There  can  be  but  one  standard  of  value  in 
any  country  at  the  same  time,  and  a  successful  use  of  gold 
and  silver  simultaneously  can  be  effected  only  by  their  con- 
solidation upon  an  agreed  ratio  of  value,  and  by  the  concur- 
rence of  the  commercial  nations  of  the  world. 

*'  The  undersigned  is  also  of  opinion  that  it  is  expedient 
for  this  Government  to  extend  an  invitation  to  the  commercial 
nations  of  the  world  to  join  in  convention  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  whether  it  is  wise  to  provide  by  treaties  and  con- 
current legislation  for  the  use  of  both  silver  and  gold  in  all 
such  nations  upon  a  fixed  relative  valuation  of  the  two  metals; 
and,  finally,  that,  until  such  an  agreement  between  this  Gov- 
ernment and  other  commercial  nations  can  be  effected,  the 
United  States  should  pursue  the  existing  policy  in  regard  to 
the  resumption  of  specie  payments." 

Further  I  said :"  It  is  to  be  apprehended  that  the  remone- 
tization  of  silver  by  the  United  States  at  the  present  time 
would  be  followed  by  such  a  depreciation  in  its  value  as  to 
furnish  a  reason  against  the  adoption  of  the  plan  by  the  rest 
of  the  world,  and  that  an  independent  movement  on  our  part 
would  increase  the  difficulties  rather  than  diminish  them." 

These  extracts  shall  suffice.  I  now  repeat  the  assertion 
with  which  I  introduced  this  topic,  viz. :  That  in  1876  the 
majority  of  the  Silver  Commission  put  aside  the  most  favor- 
able opportunity,  indeed  the  only  opportunity,  that  the  coun- 
try has  ever  had  for  the  organization  of  a  universal  system 
of  bimetallism. 

Of  that  majority,  Senator  Jones  of  Nevada,  and  Repre- 
sentative Bland,  of  Missouri,  were  the  leading  members.  If 
in  defence  or  in  extenuation  of  the  policy  of  the  majority  it 
shall  be  said  that  the  United   States  has  not   remonetized 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  «  CRIME  OF  1873  "    161 

silver,  and  that,  therefore,  the  pohcy  of  the  majority  has  not 
been  tested,  a  partial  rejoinder,  if  not,  indeed,  a  satisfactory 
reply,  may  be  deduced  from  the  facts  that  between  the  year 
1878  and  the  year  1893  the  Government  coined  more  than 
400,000,000  silver  dollars,  and  yet,  in  that  period  of  time, 
silver  bullion  fell  from  1.15  plus  per  ounce  to  .65  plus  per 
ounce. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  product  of  silver  in  the 
United  States  has  increased  with  the  demand  for  silver. 
Upon  the  passage  of  the  Sherman  Bill  the  product  advanced 
from  45,000.000  ounces  in  1888  to  an  average  of  55,000,000 
ounces  from  1889  to  1893,  inclusive.  Upon  the  repeal  of 
that  act  the  product  fell  to  49,000,000  ounces  in  1894. 

It  is  not  only  probable,  it  is  certain,  that  with  every  increas- 
ing demand  for  silver  there  will  be  an  added  supply.  Con- 
sider what  has  happened  since  the  appearance  of  the  inven- 
tions of  which  I  have  spoken. 

The  world's  annual  product  of  silver  from  1493  to  1865, 
Inclusive,  was  16,887,157  ounces.  The  largest  annual  product 
was  from  1861  to  1865,  when  it  reached  35,401,972  ounces. 
From  1866  to  1894  inclusive,  the  annual  average  product 
was  114,326,397  ounces.  In  1894  the  product  was  167,- 
752,561  ounces,  which,  as  will  be  observed,  was  about  nine 
times  the  annual  product  from  1493  to  1865. 

From  1876  to  1894  the  business  of  silver  mining  was  in- 
creased 147  per  cent.  Can  any  one  name  any  other  business 
or  pursuit  in  which  there  was  a  like  increase?  And  is  not 
the  inference  justified  that  the  profits  have  been  large  and 
tempting,  notwithstanding  the  demonetization  of  silver  in 
some  countries  and  the  suspension  of  coinage  in  other  coun- 
tries ? 

I  turn  now  to  the  future,  and  first  as  to  the  possibility  of 
the  further  use  of  silver  as  currency. 


i62  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

I  assume  tliat  in  countries  where  the  standard  is  gold  there 
may  be  a  considerable  use  of  silver,  as  in  the  United  States 
to-day. 

An  international  bimetallic  system,  binding  nations  to  each 
other  for  a  definite  term  of  years,  is  a  proposition  involving 
large  responsibilities. 

If  in  1885  it  was  not  practicable  to  secure  the  adoption  of 
the  bimetallic  system,  when  silver  was  worth  eighty-four 
cents  per  ounce,  what  is  the  prospect  of  its  adoption  when 
silver  is  worth  only  sixty-four  cents  per  ounce,  with  an 
annually  increasing  product  and  a  diminishing  price? 

What  remains  ?  This,  possibly :  That  the  nations  may 
agree  to  purchase  each  a  per  cent  of  a  fixed  amount  of  silver 
as  the  product  of  each  year.  This  scheme  might  prove,  and 
probably  it  would  prove,  to  be  only  a  temporary  expedient. 

The  enormous  increase  in  the  business  of  silver  mining  is 
evidence  that  the  profits  are  far  in  excess  of  the  profits  that 
are  gained  in  other  pursuits.  The  increase  in  product  is  likely 
to  be  followed  by  a  fall  in  price.  Such  are  the  resources  of 
the  earth  that  an  increase  in  the  demand  for  silver  will  be 
followed  by  an  increase  in  the  supply. 

Gold  mining  is  obedient  to  the  same  law.  From  1876  to 
1894  the  product  increased  74  per  cent.  That  ratio  of  in- 
crease is  likely  to  continue.  The  world  is  not  in  peril  of  a 
gold  famine.  Gold  as  a  currency,  passing  from  hand  to  hand, 
will  be  used  less  and  less.  Substitutes,  for  which  gold  can  be 
obtained,  will  be  preferred.  The  volume  of  currency  in  a 
country  is  not  limited  by  the  amount  of  gold  that  a  country 
may  possess.  It  may  increase  the  amount  of  subsidiary  coin 
very  largely,  and  it  may  add  to  the  sum  of  paper  money,  pro- 
vided that  that  paper  money  is  always  redeemable  in  gold. 

Nor  does  the  quantity  of  gold  in  a  country  determine  the 
price  of  commodities,  except  as  that  gold  is  a  part  of  the 
total  volume  of  the  currency  of  the  country.    The  volume  of 


THE  MINT  BILL  AND  THE  "  CRIME  OF  1873  "     ^^S 

currency  as  a  whole  is  the  force  by  which  the  salable  value 
of  commodities  is  affected. 

In  truth,  gold  plays  a  small  part  only  in  actual  business. 
It  is  a  regulator  of  business  rather  than  an  active  instrument 
for  the  transaction  of  business.  It  is  not  an  exaggeration  to 
say  that  the  use  of  gold  in  business  is  limited  to  a  small  frac- 
tion of  one  per  cent  of  the  aggregate  transactions  in  countries 
where  gold  is  the  standard. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  in  the  near  future  the  world  is 
to  meet  a  surfeit  of  gold,  as  it  is  now  meeting  a  surfeit  of 
silver.  Yet  even  then  its  capacity  as  a  standard  will  not  be 
affected.  History  does  not  carry  us  to  a  time  when  gold  was 
not  the  recognized  standard  for  the  measurement  of  every 
other  kind  of  property,  and  that  not  by  one  tribe  or  people 
only,  but  by  mankind  in  every  clime  and  in  every  stage  of 
savageness  or  of  civilization. 

As  the  Mint  Bill  and  the  demonetization  of  silver  have 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  country  for  a  third  of  a  century, 
and  as  there  may  be  a  revival  of  the  controversy  at  a  time 
in  the  future  I  have  thought  it  wise  for  me  to  make  a  record 
of  the  facts  in  the  most  enduring  form  at  my  command. 

At  the  end  this  is  my  claim  for  the  Mint  Bill  of  1873  •  ^^ 
established  the  gold  standard  for  the  United  States  for  all 
time.  All  the  subsequent  legislation  has  rested  upon  the  fact 
that  the  Statute  of  1873  made  the  gold  dollar  the  standard 
of  value  in  the  United  States. 


XXXV 

BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869 

SO  much  time  has  passed  since  September  24.  1869,  that 
there  may  be  a  large  public  who  may  become  inter- 
ested in  a  review  of  the  events  of  the  spring  and 
summer  of  that  year  which  culminated  in  Wall  Street,  New 
York,  in  the  transactions  and  experiences  of  the  day  known  as 
"  Black  Friday." 

When  the  Forty-first  Congress  assembled  in  December  of 
that  year,  the  House  of  Representatives  directed  the  Com- 
mittee on  Banking  and  Currency  "  to  investigate  the  causes 
that  led  to  the  unusual  and  extraordinary  fluctuations  of 
gold  in  the  city  of  New  York,  from  the  21st  to  the  27th  of 
September,  1869."  The  committee  made  a  report  which 
was  printed  under  date  of  March  i,  1870,  and  which  may 
be  found  in  a  volume  entitled  "  Garfield's  Report  on  the  Gold 
Panic  Investigation."  From  that  report  it  appears  that  cer- 
tain persons  in  the  city  of  New  York  entered  into  an  ar- 
rangement, or  understanding,  or  combination,  as  early  as  the 
month  of  April,  1869,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  the  price 
of  gold  artificially  to  a  rate  far  beyond  what  might  be  called 
the  natural  price.  The  committee,  of  which  General  Gar- 
field was  chairman,  characterized  the  combination  as  a  con- 
spiracy. Technically  and  in  a  legal  point  of  view  the  parties 
concerned  could  not  be  treated  properly  as  conspirators.  It 
does  not  appear  that  they  contemplated  the  violation  of  any 
law,  but  only  a  policy  by  which  gold  might  be  advanced  from 

164 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         165 

time  to  time,  and  out  of  which  advance  large  sums  of  money- 
might  be  reahzed  by  those  who  were  holders  of  gold.  Upon 
that  theory  Jay  Gould  and  James  Fisk,  Jr.,  who  were  the 
leaders  and  organizers  of  the  combination,  with  their  asso- 
ciates, made  large  purchases  of  gold  at  prices  varying  from 
thirty  to  thirty-five  per  cent,  premium.  At  the  close  of  the 
month  of  April,  the  price  of  gold,  not  then,  as  far  as  known, 
under  the  influence  of  any  speculative  movement,  was  at  a 
premium  of  about  thirty-four  per  cent.  The  indications  were 
that,  during  the  months  of  May  and  June,  the  parties  in- 
terested in  the  combination  made  large  purchases.  By  the 
20th  of  May  the  price  had  reached  a  premium  of  forty-four 
per  cent.  From  that  time  onward,  until  the  last  of  July,  the 
premium  diminished,  and  at  that  date  the  rate  was  thirty-six 
per  cent. 

When  I  entered  the  Treasury  Department  in  March,  there 
had  not  been  sales  of  gold  nor  purchases  of  bonds  by  the 
Treasury  Department  as  a  policy,  and  but  few  transactions 
on  either  side  had  been  made  by  my  predecessors  in  office.  As 
early  as  the  12th  day  of  May  I  commenced  the  purchase  of 
bonds  for  the  sinking  fund  and  for  the  reduction  of  the 
interest-bearing  public  debt.  The  total  purchases  during 
the  year  1869  amounted  to  something  more  than  $88,000,000, 
for  which  there  was  paid  in  currency  $102,000,000  and  a 
margin  over.  At  that  time,  the  customs  receipts  were  in  gold 
exclusively,  and  the  purchase  of  bonds  could  only  be  made 
by  a  sale  of  gold  or  by  a  direct  purchase  of  bonds  to  be  paid 
for  in  gold.  Suggestions  were  made  by  bankers  and  others 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  perhaps  elsewhere,  that  the 
purchase  of  bonds  should  be  made  in  gold.  This  suggestion 
was  not  acceptable  to  me,  and  upon  the  ground  that  the  sale 
of  gold  would  be  limited  to  those  who  had  bonds,  or  whq 
could  procure  bonds,  for  the  payment  of  gold.  From  the  29th 
of  April,  when  the  first  sale  of  gold  was  made,  until  the  31st 


i66  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

clay  of  DecenJjer,  the  sales  amounted  to  something  more 
than  $53,000,000,  and  the  proceeds  to  something  over  $70,- 
000.000.  The  difference  in  the  amount  realized  from  the 
sale  of  gold  and  the  amount  paid  for  bonds  purchased  was  met 
by  the  excess  of  receipts  over  the  expenditures  of  the  Gov- 
ernment during  that  period. 

As  having  some  connection,  and  perhaps  an  important  con- 
nection, with  what  is  to  be  said  hereafter  touching  General 
Grant's  action  in  the  days  of  September,  when  the  specula- 
tion was  going  on,  I  think  it  proper  to  make  a  statement 
of  my  relations  to  the  President.  I  had  declined  the  office 
of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  on  the  morning  of  my 
nomination  to  the  Senate  I  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Washburne, 
through  whom  the  invitation  of  the  President  that  I  should 
accept  the  office  was  made,  requesting  him  and  urging  him  to 
say  to  the  President  that  I  was  unwilling  to  accept  the  place. 
My  nomination  was  sent  to  the  Senate  and  confinned,  and  as 
there  seemed  to  be  no  alternative  for  me,  I  entered  upon  the 
duties  of  the  office.  Due  in  part  to  these  circumstances,  as  I 
think,  the  President  accepted  the  idea  that  the  management 
of  the  Treasury  Department  was  in  my  hands,  and  from  first 
to  last,  during  the  four  years  that  I  was  in  his  Cabinet,  his 
acts  and  his  conversation  proceeded  upon  that  idea.  More- 
over, he  was  influenced  by  a  military  view  that  an  officer  who 
was  charged  with  the  conduct  of  a  business,  or  of  an  under- 
taking, should  be  left  free  to  act,  that  he  should  be  made  re- 
sponsible, and  that,  in  case,  of  failure,  the  consequences  should 
rest  upon  him.  It  happened,  and  as  a  plan  on  my  part,  that 
neither  the  President  nor  the  Cabinet  was  made  responsible 
for  what  was  done  in  the  Treasury  Department.  Hence  it 
was  that  I  presented  to  the  Cabinet  but  two  questions. 
One  of  these  was  of  no  considerable  consequence.  The  other 
related  to  the  political  effect  that  might  follow  a  loan  that 
I  contemplated  making  upon  certain  terms  in  the  year  1872, 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         167 

when  the  Presidential  contest  was  pending.  In  the  line  of 
these  views,  it  happened  that  I  announced  my  purpose  to 
purchase  bonds  in  May,  1869,  without  conference  either  with 
the  Cabinet  or  with  the  President.  When  the  announcement 
was  made,  there  was  a  slight  advance  in  bonds.  In  order  that 
the  business  interests  of  the  country  might  not  be  influenced 
by  an  apprehension  that  changes  might  take  place  in  the 
policy  of  the  Department,  I  announced  (as  stated  in  Chap- 
ter XXIII)  at  the  beginning  of  each  month  the  sales  of 
gold  and  the  purchases  of  bonds  that  were  to  be  made 
during  the  coming  month.  Those  announcements  were  sent 
out  on  the  evening  of  Sunday,  either  the  last  Sunday  of  the 
closing  month  or  the  first  Sunday  of  the  opening  month.  The 
despatches  were  written  by  myself  Sunday  evening,  and  sent 
to  the  Assistant  Treasurer  at  New  York.  A  copy  was  given 
to  the  agent  of  the  Associated  Press,  that  the  public  might 
be  informed  in  the  morning  of  the  policy  for  the  ensuing 
month,  and  that  there  should  be  no  opportunity  for  specula- 
tion by  persons  who  might  obtain  information  in  advance 
of  the  general  public.  Unhappily,  this  policy  was  made  the 
basis  of  the  proceedings  in  New  York  which  culminated  in 
"Black  Friday."  The  parties  interested — I  do  not  call  them 
conspirators — assumed  that  for  thirty  days  the  policy  of  the 
department  as  to  the  sale  of  gold  and  the  purchase  of  bonds 
would  remain  unchanged,  and  on  that  basis  they  proceeded  to 
make  arrangements  for  the  advance  in  gold.  Not  satisfied 
with  that  policy,  which  was  designed  to  save  the  business 
community  from  unnecessary  apprehensions,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  induce  me  to  make  an  announcement  for  two  or 
three  months.  Such  suggestions  were  made  in  letters  that 
I  received  from  interested  parties  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
Speculation  in  gold  was  not  all  on  one  side.  There  were 
speculators  who  were  anxious  to  break  down  the  price  of 
gold,  and  between  the  lines  I  could  read  the  condition  of  the 


i68  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

respective  parties  from  whom  I  received  letters.  Under  date 
of  September  23,  I  received  a  letter  from  a  prominent  house 
in  New  York  in  which  the  writer  said :  "  I  am  actuated  to 
again  portray  to  you  the  state  of  financial  affairs  as  they  now 
exist  in  this  city.  The  speculative  advance  in  gold  has 
brought  legitimate  business  almost  to  a  standstill,  owing  to 
the  apprehension  of  a  corner,  which  from  appearances  may 
appear  at  any  moment." 

It  did  not  follow  that  the  writer  of  the  letter  was  "  short  on 
gold,"  as  the  phrase  is.  I  had,  however,  in  my  possession  at 
that  time  a  list  of  persons  in  New  York  who  were  supposed  to 
be  contestants,  some  for  an  advance  in  gold  and  others  for  a 
fall.  The  writer  of  the  letter  was  among  those  whose  names 
had  been  given  to  me  as  speculators  for  a  fall  in  gold.  In 
this  connection  I  may  say  that  it  was  no  part  of  my  policy  to 
regulate  affairs  in  Wall  Street  or  State  Street  or  Lombard 
Street.  Until  it  became  apparent  that  the  operations  in  New 
York  affected  largely  and  seriously  the  business  interests  of 
the  country,  and  until  it  became  apparent  that  the  Treasury 
receipts  were  diminished  by  the  panic  that  had  taken  posses- 
sion of  the  public,  I  refrained  from  any  interference  with 
those  who  were  engaged  either  in  forcing  up  or  forcing  down 
the  price  of  gold. 

Under  date  of  the  24th  day  of  September,  I  received  a 
letter  from  my  special  and  trusted  correspondent  in  the  city 
of  New  York  in  which  I  find  this  statement :  "  This  has  been 
the  most  dreadful  day  I  have  ever  seen  in  this  city.  While 
gold  was  jumping  from  forty-three  to  sixty-one  the  excite- 
ment was  painful.  Old,  conservative  merchants  looked 
aghast,  nobody  was  in  their  offices,  and  the  agony  depicted  on 
the  faces  of  men  who  crowded  the  streets  made  one  feel  as  if 
Gettysburg  had  been  lost  and  that  the  rebels  were  marching 
down  Broadway.  Friends  of  the  Administration  openly 
stated  that  the  President  or  yourself  must  have  given  these 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         169 

men  to  feel  you  would  not  interfere  with  them  or  they  would 
never  dare  to  rush  gold  up  so  rapidly.  In  truth,  many  parties 
of  real  responsibility  and  friends  of  the  Government  openly 
declared  that  somebody  in  Washington  must  be  in  this  com- 
bination," 

The  last  sentence  in  this  quotation  unfolds  the  policy  which 
had  guided  Gould  and  Fisk  and  their  associates  from  April 
to  the  culmination  of  their  undertaking,  the  24th  day  of  Sep- 
tember. As  far  as  I  know,  the  effort  had  been  directed  chiefly 
to  the  support  of  a  false  theory  that  the  President  was  opposed 
to  the  sale  of  gold,  especially  during  the  autumn  months,  when 
a  large  amount  of  currency  is  required,  or  in  those  days  was 
supposed  to  be  required,  for  "  the  moving,"  as  it  was  called, 
of  the  produce  of  the  West  to  the  sea  coast  for  shipment  to 
Europe.  They  even  went  so  far  as  to  allege  that  the  Presi- 
dent had  ordered  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  suspend  the 
sale  of  gold  during  the  month  of  September,  for  which  there 
was  no  foundation  whatever.  Indeed,  up  to  the  22d  of  Sep- 
tember, when  I  introduced  the  subject  of  the  price  of  gold  to 
the  President,  he  had  neither  said  nor  done  anything,  except  to 
write  a  letter  from  New  York  City  under  date  of  September 
12,  1869,  in  the  following  words: 

New  York  City,  September  12,  1869. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  leave  here  for  western  Pennsylvania  to-mor- 
row morning,  and  will  not  reach  Washington  before  the 
middle  or  last  of  next  week.  Had  I  known  before  making 
my  arrangements  for  starting  that  you  would  be  in  this  city 
early  this  week,  I  would  have  remained  to  meet  you.  I  am 
satisfied  that  on  your  arrival  you  will  be  met  by  the  bulls  and 
bears  of  Wall  Street,  and  probably  by  merchants,  too,  to  in- 
duce you  to  sell  gold,  or  pay  the  November  interest  in  ad- 
vance, on  the  one  side,  and  to  hold  fast  on  the  other.  The 
fact  is,  a  desperate  struggle  is  now  taking  place,  and  each 


170  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

party  wants  the  Government  to  help  him  out.  I  write  this 
letter  to  advise  you  of  what  I  think  you  may  expect,  to  put 
you  on  your  guard. 

I  think,  from  the  lights  before  me,  I  would  move  on  with- 
out change  until  the  present  struggle  is  over.  If  you  want 
to  write  me  this  week,  my  address  will  be  Washington,  Penn- 
sylvania. I  would  like  to  hear  your  experience  with  the 
factions,  at  all  events,  if  they  give  you  time  to  write.  No 
doubt  you  will  have  a  better  chance  to  judge  than  I,  for  I  have 
avoided  general  discussion  on  the  subject. 

Yours  truly, 

U.  S.  Grant. 
Hon.  George  S.  Bout  well. 

Secretary  of  Treasury. 

At  a  meeting,  which  was  accidental,  as  far  as  the  President 
was  concerned,  on  board  one  of  Fisk  and  Gould's  Fall  River 
steamers,  when  he  was  on  his  way  to  Boston,  in  June  of  that 
year,  to  attend  the  Peace  Jubilee,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
commit  General  Grant  to  the  policy  of  holding  gold.  I  was 
present  on  the  trip  with  the  President.  What  happened  on 
the  boat  may  be  best  given  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Fisk  and 
Mr.  Gould.  Mr.  Fisk,  in  his  testimony  before  the  committee, 
said: 

"  On  our  passage  over  to  Boston  with  General  Grant,  we 
endeavored  to  ascertain  what  his  position  in  regard  to  the 
finances  was.  We  went  down  to  supper  about  nine  o'clock, 
intending  while  we  were  there  to  have  this  thing  pretty  thor- 
oughly talked  up.  and,  if  possible,  to  relieve  him  from  any 
idea  of  putting  the  price  of  gold  down." 

Mr.  Gould's  account  before  the  committee  was  as  follows : 

"  At  this  supper  the  question  came  up  about  the  state  of 
the  country,  the  crops,  prospects  ahead,  etc.  The  President 
was  a  listener;  the  other  gentlemen  were  discussing.     Some 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         171 

were  in  favor  of  Boutwell's  selling  gold,  and  some  were  op- 
posed to  it.  After  they  had  all  interchanged  their  views, 
some  one  asked  the  President  what  his  view  was.  He  re- 
marked that  he  thought  there  was  a  certain  amount  of  ficti- 
tiousness  about  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  that  the 
bubble  might  as  well  be  tapped  in  one  way  as  another.  .  .  . 
We  supposed  from  that  conversation  that  the  President  was  a 
contractionist.  His  remark  struck  across  us  like  a  wet 
blanket." 

The  error  of  Fisk  and  Gould  and  their  associates,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  contest,  was  in  the  supposition 
that  the  President  was  taking  any  part  in  the  operations  of  the 
Treasury  concerning  the  price  of  gold.  If  he  expressed  any 
opinions  outside  in  conversation,  there  were  no  acts  on  his 
part  in  harmony  with  or  in  antagonism  to  the  views  he  en- 
tertained. As  a  matter  of  fact,  with  the  exception  of  the 
letter  from  the  city  of  New  York,  he  had  no  conference  or 
correspondence  with  me  up  to  the  226.  day  of  September,  when 
I  called  upon  him,  and  gave  him  a  statement  of  the  price  of 
gold  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  of  the  nature  and  character 
of  the  combination  that  existed  there,  as  far  as  it  was  under- 
stood by  me.  Their  policy  was  directed  to  two  points :  first, 
to  influence  the  President,  if  possible,  to  interfere  in  a  way  to 
advance  the  price  of  gold;  and,  second,  to  satisfy  their  ad- 
herents and  opponents  that  the  President  either  had  so  in- 
terfered or  would  so  interfere. 

Even  Fisk  and  Gould  may  at  a  period  of  time  have  rested 
in  the  belief  that  the  President  either  had  interfered  or  that  he 
would  interfere.  Their  confidence  was  in  Mr.  A.  R.  Corbin, 
a  brother-in-law  of  the  President,  who,  under  the  influence 
of  various  considerations,  which  appear  to  have  been  personal 
and  pecuniary  to  a  very  large  extent,  lent  himself  to  the  task 
of  influencing  the  President.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  his  at- 
tempts were  very  feeble  and  misdirected  and  of  no  conse- 


172  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

quence  whatever.  Indeed,  such  is  my  opinion  of  the  Presi- 
dent, and  such  my  belief  as  to  his  opinion  concerning  Mr. 
Corbin,  that  nothing  which  Mr.  Corbin  did  say,  or  could  have 
said,  did  have  or  could  have  had  the  least  influence  upon  the 
President's  opinion  or  conduct.  It  is,  however,  also  true  that 
Fisk  and  Gould  employed  Corbin  and  gave  him  consideration 
in  their  undertakings  out  of  which  he  realized  some  money. 
I  received  information  also,  which  may  not  have  been  true, 
that  they  suggested  to  him  that  he  might  become  president  of 
the  Tenth  National  Bank,  which  had  a  very  conspicuous  part 
m  the  events  which  culminated  in  Black  Friday. 

An  attempt  to  strengthen  the  impression  that  it  was  the 
purpose  of  the  President  to  prevent  the  sale  of  gold  was  made 
through  an  article  prepared  by  Mr.  Corbin,  probably  under  the 
direction  of  Mr.  Gould  and  others,  which  appeared  finally, 
with  some  alterations  and  omissions,  in  the  New  York  Times 
of  the  25th  of  August.  It  appears  to  have  been  the  purpose 
of  the  parties  interested  to  mislead  the  Times  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  article,  and  they  secured  the  agency  of  Mr. 
James  McHenry,  a  prominent  English  capitalist,  who  called  at 
the  Times  office,  and  presented  the  article  to  Mr.  Bigelow, 
the  editor,  as  the  opinion  of  a  person  in  the  intimate  confi- 
dence of  the  President.  The  article  was  put  in  type  and 
double  leaded.  When  so  prepared,  suspicions  were  aroused, 
and  the  financial  editor,  Mr.  Norvell,  made  very  important 
corrections,  taking  care  to  omit  sentences  and  paragraphs  that 
contained  explicit  statements  as  to  the  purposes  of  the  Presi- 
dent. Some  of  the  phrases  omitted  were  in  these  words :  "  It 
may  be  that  further  purchases  of  bonds  will  be  made  directly 
with  gold."  "  As  gold  accumulates,  the  less  would  be  the 
premium  upon  it.  High  prices  for  gold  before  the  sale  of  our 
products  would  cause  lower  prices  of  gold  after  the  sale  of 
products." 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869  173 

Among  the  statements  made  which  were  preserved  in  the 
article  as  printed  finally  were  these:  "The  President  evi- 
dently intends  to  pay  off  the  5-20S  as  rapidly  as  he  may  in 
gold  " ;  "  So  far  as  current  movements  of  the  Treasury  are 
concerned,  until  crops  are  moved  it  is  not  likely  Treasury  gold 
will  be  sold  for  currency  to  be  locked  up." 

Following  the  appearance  of  this  article,  I  received  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Gould,  dated  the  30th  of  August,  in  which  this 
sentence  appears :  "  If  the  New  York  Times  correctly  re- 
flects your  financial  policy  during  the  next  three  or  four 
months ;  namely,  to  unloose  the  currency  balance  at  the  Treas- 
ury or  keep  it  at  the  lowest  possible  figure,  and  also  to  refrain 
during  the  same  period  from  selling  or  putting  gold  on  the 
market,  thus  preventing  a  depression  of  the  premium  at  a 
season  of  the  year  when  the  bulk  of  our  agricultural  products 
have  to  be  marketed,  then  I  think  the  country  peculiarly  for- 
tunate in  having  a  financial  head  who  can  take  a  broad  view 
of  the  situation,  and  who  realizes  the  importance  of  settling 
the  large  balance  of  debt  against  us  by  the  export  of  our  agri- 
cultural and  mining  products  instead  of  bonds  and  gold." 

Of  my  reply  to  that  letter,  the  committee  say :  "  The  brief 
and  formal  reply  of  the  Secretary  gave  Gould  no  clew  to  the 
purpose  of  the  Government." 

Under  date  of  September  20,  I  received  a  letter  from 
Gould  to  which  I  made  no  reply.  Aside  from  the  topics  to 
which  he  directed  my  attention  in  the  letter,  it  is  the  unavoid- 
able inference  from  the  context  as  a  whole  that  Gould  had 
then  no  faith  in  the  statements  given  to  the  public  that  the 
President  was  in  any  manner  pledged  to  interfere  and  prevent 
the  sale  of  gold.  The  following  extracts  from  the  letter  of 
September  20  are  a  full  exposition  of  his  policy  and  of  the 
means  on  which  he  relied  to  advance  the  price  of  gold  during 
the  month  of  September: 


174  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  price  of  gold  and  its  effect  upon 
the  producing  interests  of  the  West,  permit  me  to  say  that 
during  the  months  of  September  of  the  past  two  years  the 
price  has  averaged  about  forty-five.  Gold  must  range  this 
year  at  about  that  premium  to  enable  the  export  of  the  sur- 
plus crops  of  w^heat  j»nd  corn.  We  have  to  compete  with  the 
grain-producing  countries  bordering  on  the  Black  and  Medi- 
terranean seas,  and  it  requires  a  premium  of  over  forty  per 
cent  on  gold  to  equalize  our  high-priced  labor  and  long  rail 
transportation  to  the  seaboard. 

"  My  theory  is  to  let  gold  go  to  a  price  that  we  can  export 
our  surplus  products  to  pay  our  foreign  debts,  and  the  mo- 
ment we  turn  the  balance  of'  trade  in  our  favor  gold  will  de- 
cline from  natural  causes.  In  my  judgment,  the  Government 
cannot  afford  to  sell  gold  during  the  next  three  months  while 
the  crops  are  being  marketed,  and  if  such  a  policy  were  an- 
nounced, it  would  immediately  cause  a  high  export  of  bread- 
stuffs  and  an  active  fall  trade. 

"  P.  S.  In  addition  to  the  above,  if  gold  were  put  upon  the 
market,  government  bonds  would  decline  to  at  least  fifteen, 
leaving  the  purchases  made  by  the  Government  in  the  past  few 
months  open  to  criticism  as  showing  a  loss." 

As  early  as  the  20th  of  September,  I  had  evidence  satis- 
factory to  me  that  the  Tenth  National  Bank  in  the  city  of 
New  York  was  a  party  to  the  speculation  in  gold,  and  that  its 
assistance  was  rendered  largely  through  the  certification  of 
checks  drawn  by  the  brokers,  and  largely  in  excess  of  the 
balances  due  them  upon  the  books  of  the  bank  when  the  cer- 
tifications were  made.  It  appeared  from  the  evidence  sub- 
mitted that  these  certifications  of  checks  in  excess  of  the 
balances  due  to  brokers  amounted  to  about  $18,000,000  on  the 
22d  and  23d  of  September,  when  the  speculation  was  at  Its 
height. 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         175 

For  the  purpose  of  arresting  that  process  and  checking  the 
speculation  in  gold,  I  detained  the  comptroller  of  the  cur- 
rency and  three  competent  clerks  after  the  close  of  business  on 
the  22d  of  September,  The  clerks  received  commissions  as 
bank  examiners,  and  were  instructed  to  go  to  New  York  that 
night  and  to  take  possession  of  the  Tenth  National  Bank,  at 
the  opening  of  business  in  the  morning,  and  to  give  directions 
that  the  habit  of  certifying  checks  in  excess  of  the  balances 
due  must  be  suspended.  It  was  my  expectation  that  the  en- 
forcement of  that  rule  would,  or  might,  end  the  speculation, 
inasmuch  as  the  purchasers  of  gold  would  be  unable  to  meet 
their  obligations,  and  therefore  it  would  be  out  of  their 
power  to  create  them.  This  expectation  was  not  realized. 
Whether  the  certification  went  on  at  the  Tenth  National 
Bank  in  defiance  of  the  order,  or  whether  other  banks  were  so 
connected  with  the  speculation  that  checks  were  certified 
elsewhere,  was  not  known  to  me. 

I  called  upon  the  President  after  business  on  the  23d  of 
September,  and  made  a  statement  of  the  condition  of  the 
gold  market  in  the  city  of  New  York,  as  far  as  it  had  been 
communicated  to  me  during  the  day.  I  then  said  that  a 
sale  of  gold  should  be  made  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  the 
market  and  ending  the  excitement.  He  asked  me  what  sum 
I  proposed  to  sell.  I  said :  "  Three  million  dollars  will  be 
sufficient  to  break  the  combination." 

He  said  in  reply :  "I  think  you  had  better  make  it 
$5,000,000." 

Without  assenting  to  his  proposition  or  dissenting  from 
it,  I  returned  to  the  department,  and  sent  an  order  for  the 
sale  of  $4,000,000  of  gold  the  next  day.  The  order  was  to 
the  assistant  treasurer  in  these  words :  "  Sell  $4,000,000 
gold  to-morrow,  and  buy  $4,000,000  bonds."  The  message 
was  not  in  cipher,  and  there  was  no  attempt  to  keep  it  secret. 
It  was  duplicated,  and  sent  by  each  of  the  rival  telegraph 


176  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

lines  to  New  York.  Within  the  space  Of  fifteen  minutes 
after  the  receipt  of  the  despatch,  the  price  of  gold  fell  from 
160  to  133,  and  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  witnesses, 
'*  half  of  Wall  Street  was  involved  in  ruin." 

For  the  moment,  the  condition  of  Wall  Street  and  the 
Gold  Exchange  seemed  to  justify  the  statement  of  the  person 
whose  language  has  just  been  quoted.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  many  of  the  people  involved  recovered  from  the 
panic,  and  were  able  to  meet  their  obligations.  Some  were 
gainers,  probably,  by  the  proceedings  of  the  month  of  Sep- 
tember, and  some  were  losers.  As  I  have  already  said,  I  had 
no  purpose  to  help  anybody  or  to  hurt  anybody,  and  I  inter- 
fered in  Wall  Street  only  when  the  operations  that  were 
going  on  there  involved  innocent  parties  who  were  engaged 
in  legitimate  business,  and  also  imposed  upon  the  Govern- 
ment a  sacrifice  in  the  loss  of  revenue. 

Following  the  downfall  of  the  combination,  there  appeared 
in  the  newspapers  statements  and  imputations  which  reflected 
upon  the  President  and  his  family  as  to  their  relations  to  the 
gold  operations.  All  these  statements  were  without  founda- 
tion. Mr.  Corbin's  connection  was  established  beyond  con- 
troversy, but  the  evidence  which  established  his  relations  to 
the  parties  engaged  in  the  gold  speculation  was  also  conclu- 
sive as  to  the  fact  that  the  President  had  no  connection  with 
it,  and  that  he  was  not  in  any  way  interested  in  any  policy  cal- 
culated to  advance  the  interests  of  the  combination. 

The  apprehensions  that  were  entertained  on  the  evening 
of  the  24th  and  on  the  25th  of  September  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  disaster  to  business  and  to  individuals  engaged  in  gold 
speculation  were  not  realized  in  full.  My  special  corre- 
spondent in  New  York  said  in  a  letter  dated  September  25 : 
"  Many  of  the  houses  hurt  and  reported  failed  yesterday  are 
likely  to  recover."  Again  he  said :  "  The  demoralization  in 
the  street  was  never  equaled,  and  it  must  take  several  days  at 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869  177 

least  before  matters  get  fairly  straightened.  There  is  a 
wholesome  dread  against  making  any  obligations.  Smith, 
Gould,  and  Martin  are  just  reported  as  paying  in  full." 

In  a  letter  dated  September  27  at  6:  30  p.  m.,  the  assist- 
ant treasurer  at  New  York  wrote  me :  "  From  the  best  evi- 
dence to  be  gathered  in  the  excitement  here,  it  is  safe  to  infer 
that  the  Gold  Exchange  Bank  will  suffer  losses  to  the  extent 
of  its  capital  and  surplus  at  least,  and  perhaps  more."  To 
the  contrary  of  that  prediction,  it  is  to  be  said  that  the  Gold 
Exchange  Bank  was  able  to  meet  all  its  obligations. 

In  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Grinnell,  then  collector  of  the 
port  of  New  York,  under  date  of  September  24,  after  the 
announcement  of  the  sale  of  gold  had  been  made,  I  find  this 
statement :  "  Had  you  not  taken  the  course  which  you 
did,  I  believe  a  large  proportion  of  our  most  reliable  mer- 
chants and  bankers  would  have  been  obliged  to  suspend 
before  three  o'clock  to-day,  as  confidence  was  entirely  gone 
and  the  panic  was  becoming  universal." 

Following  the  break  in  the  price  of  gold,  there  were  persons 
Vk'ho  became  apprehensive  that  the  rate  would  fall  to  a  point 
which  would  affect  their  interests  unfavorably,  and  I  received 
a  letter,  dated  after  business  hours  on  the  24th,  in  which  the 
writer  said :  "  It  is  not  impossible  that,  in  view  of  the  large- 
ness of  the  amount  of  gold  to  be  sold  to-morrow,  there  may 
be  a  combination  to  procure  it  at  a  low  price,  and  you  will 
therefore  excuse  a  suggestion  that,  as  the  effect  of  your  inter- 
vention has  already  been  realized,  it  might  be  well  to  protect 
the  Government  by  making  it  known  that  you  will  reject  all 
unacceptable  bids." 

These  extracts  from  letters  received  previous  to  and  dur- 
ing the  crisis  may  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  safe  to 
trust  to  persons  engaged  in  large  business  and  commercial 
transactions  as  guides  for  the  administration  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  financial  matters.     Indeed,  one  may  go  still  further. 


ijS  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

and  say  that  it  is  not  safe  to  trust  the  guidance  of  the  Govern- 
ment in  financial  affairs  to  men  whose  life  business  it  has  been 
jfto  convert  information  into  gold. 

The  most  unpleasant  incident  of  the  gold  speculation  of 
1869  was  the  fact  that  General  Butterfield,  the  assistant 
treasurer  in  the  city  of  New  York,  was  so  far  involved  as  to 
lead  the  President  to  ask  for  his  resignation.  That  request 
did  not  arise  from  any  evidence  that  General  Butterfield  was 
in  any  way  concerned  in  the  movement  or  combination,  which 
led  to  the  advance  in  gold.  Indeed,  the  evidence  was  con- 
clusive to  the  contrary.  This  fact,  however,  did  appear — 
that  during  the  period  of  the  excitement  he  had  made  some 
purchases  and  sales  of  gold  and  bonds.  The  suspicions  that 
existed  in  the  city  of  New  York  as  to  his  connection  with  the 
gold  movement  were  largely  exaggerations  of  the  actual 
facts.  There  was  no  evidence  which  impeached  his  official 
or  personal  integrity  in  business.  His  resignation  was  re- 
quested upon  the  ground  that  it  was  essential  to  the  proper 
administration  of  the  office  that  the  person  holding  the  im- 
portant place  of  assistant  treasurer  in  the  city  of  New  York 
should  not  be  engaged  in  business  transactions  which  might 
give  rise  to  the  conjecture  that  he  had  advantages  over  others 
in  consequence  of  his  connection  with  the  Government. 

It  ought  to  be  said  that  Mr.  Gould,  in  his  testimony  before 
the  committee,  which  was  given  at  great  length  and  with 
singular  clearness  of  statement,  denied  expressly  the  exist- 
ence of  any  combination.  In  fine,  he  claimed,  what  may  have 
been  the  truth,  and  upon  the  whole  probably  was  the  truth, 
that  it  was  no  part  of  his  purpose  to  carry  the  price  of  gold 
above  forty  or  forty-five  per  cent  premium.  He  attributed 
the  excessive  and  rapid  advance  of  the  price  of  gold  to  the 
persons  who  had  sold  short  and  who,  becoming  alarmed, 
attempted  to  cover  their  sales  by  making  purchases,  and  by 


BLACK  FRIDAY-SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         179 

bidding  against  each  other  carried  the  price  from  about  140  to 
160. 

The  same  statement  was  made  by  Mr.  Fisk  as  to  the  cause 
of  the  excessive  rise  in  the  price  of  gold.  He  said :  "  It  went 
up  to  sixty,  for  the  reason  that  there  were  in  that  market  a 
hundred  men  short  of  gold.  There  were  banking  houses 
which  had  stood  for  fifty  years,  and  who  did  not  know  but 
what  they  were  ruined.  They  rushed  into  the  market  to 
cover  their  shorts.  I  think  it  went  from  forty-five  to  sixty 
without  the  purchase  of  more  than  $600,000  or  $700,000  of 
gold.  It  went  there  in  consequence  of  the  frightened  bear 
interests.  There  was  a  feeling  that  there  was  no  gold  in  the 
market  and  that  the  Government  would  not  let  any  gold  go 
out." 

At  the  time  of  the  gold  panic,  Gould  and  Fisk  were  inter- 
ested in  the  business  of  railway  transportation  from  the  West 
to  the  seaboard,  and  Mr.  Fisk  made  a  statement  which  sets 
forth  the  theory  on  which  he  and  Gould  professed  to  act. 
Fisk  said  :  "  The  whole  movement  was  based  upon  a  desire  on 
our  part  to  employ  our  men  and  work  our  power  getting  sur- 
plus crops  moved  East  and  receiving  for  ourselves  that  por- 
tion of  the  transportation  properly  belonging  to  our  road. 
That  was  the  beginning  of  the  movement,  and  the  further 
operations  were  based  upon  the  promise  of  what  Corbin  said 
the  Government  would  do." 

From  the  testimony  of  Jay  Gould  and  James  Fisk,  Jr.,  as  it 
appeared  in  the  printed  report,  we  are  able  to  comprehend  the 
characteristics  of  the  two  men.  Gould  was  cool  and  collected 
from  beginning  to  end,  with  no  indication  in  his  statements 
that  the  events  of  the  24th  of  September  had  in  any  particu- 
lar disturbed  him  in  temper  or  nerve  or  confidence  in  his 
ability  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  situation.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  testimony  of  Fisk  indicated  the  absence  of  the  quali- 


i8o  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ties  ascribed  to  Gould,  and  during  his  examination  he  failed 
to  maintain  even  ordinary  equanimity  of  temper.  He  inter- 
fered with  the  proceedings,  and  delivered  this  address  to  the 
committee:  "  I  must  state  that  I  must  ask  you  gentlemen  to 
summon  witnesses  whose  names  I  shall  give  you.  My  men 
are  starving.  When  the  newspapers  told  you  we  were  keeping 
away  from  this  committee,  I  say  to  you  that  there  is  no  man 
in  this  country  who  wants  to  come  before  you  as  bad  as  Jim 
Fisk,  Jr.  I  have  thirty  or  forty  thousand  wives  and  children 
to  feed  with  the  money  disbursed  from  our  office.  We  have 
no  money  to  pay  them,  and  I  know  what  has  brought  them  to 
this  condition." 

Another  extract  from  Fisk's  testimony  gives  a  graphic 
view  of  his  condition  when  the  crash  came :  "  I  went  down  to 
the  neighborhood  of  Wall  Street  Friday  morning.  When  I 
got  back  to  our  office  you  can  imagine  I  was  in  no  enviable 
state  of  mind,  and  the  moment  I  got  up  street  that  afternoon 
I  started  right  round  to  old  Corbin's  to  rake  him  out.  I  went 
into  the  room,  and  sent  word  that  Mr.  Fisk  wanted  to  see  him 
in  the  dining-room.  I  was  too  mad  to  say  anything  civil,  and 
when  he  came  into  the  room,  said  I,  '  Do  you  know  what  you 
have  done  here,  you  and  your  people  ? '  He  began  to  wring 
his  hands,  and  '  Oh,'  he  says,  '  this  is  a  horrible  position. 
Are  you  ruined?'  I  said  I  didn't  know  whether  I  was  or 
not;  and  I  asked  him  again  if  he  knew  what  had  happened. 
He  had  been  crying,  and  said  he  had  just  heard;  that  he  had 
been  sure  everything  was  all  right;  but  that  something  had 
occurred  entirely  different  from  what  he  had  anticipated. 
Said  I.  '  That  don't  amount  to  anything.  We  know  that 
gold  ought  not  to  be  at  thirty-one,  and  that  it  would  not  be 
but  for  such  performances  as  you  have  had  this  last  week; 

you   know well   it   would   not   if  you   had   not   failed.' 

I  knew  that  somebody  had  run  a  saw  right  into  us,  and  said 
I,  '  This  whole thing  has  turned  out  just  as  I  told  you  it 


BLACK  FRIDAY— SEPTEMBER  24,  1869         181 

would.'     I  considered  the  whole  party  a  pack  of  cowards; 
and  I  expected  that,  when  we  came  to  clear  our  hands,  they 
would  sock  it  right  into  us.     I  said  to  him,  '  I  don't  know 
whether  you  have  lied  or  not,  and  I  don't  know  what  ought 
to  be  done  with  you.' 

"  He  was  on  the  other  side  of  the  table,  weeping  and  wail- 
ing, and  I  was  gnashing  my  teeth.  *  Now,'  he  says,  '  you 
must  quiet  yourself.'  I  told  him  I  didn't  want  to  be  quiet;  I 
had  no  desire  to  ever  be  quiet  again.  He  says,  '  But,  my 
dear  sir,  you  will  lose  your  reason.'  Says  I,  '  Speyers  has 
already  lost  his  reason;  reason  has  gone  out  of  everybody  but 
me.'  " 

My  part  and  my  interest  in  the  events  of  Black  Friday  came 
to  an  end  with  an  effort  to  ascertain  the  authorship  of  an 
anonymous  communication,  written  in  red  ink,  that  I  received 
the  6th  day  of  October.  It  was  postmarked  at  New  York,  the 
5th  of  October,  1869.  (A  reduced  facsimile  of  the  communi- 
cation is  shown  below.)  An  attempt  was  made  through 
the  police  and  the  secret  service  system  to  trace  the  author- 
ship of  the  superscription.     The  attempt  was  ineffectual. 

Ij>   qeU    A«tSH«t  «eU    oJt   iSO    ttiikliV     is- eLa»fi    I    anv  Ci.  tVut«4.    ffuxn/.  Y«U>  U' ill 

ie  lite  canse   «^  mj    run*,.  iY«u»*  U^  viill  ^e  tn'Sow^ey . 

It  appears  in  the  review  that  Mr.  Gould  originated  the 
scheme  of  advancing  the  price  of  gold  and  that  Mr.  Fisk  was 
his  principal  coadjutor.  It  also  appears  that  Mr.  Fisk  en- 
tered into  the  arrangement  upon  the  basis  of  friendship  for 
Mr.  Gould,  and  not  in  consequence  of  an  opinion  on  his  part 
that  the  scheme  was  a  wise  one.  Mr.  Gould  had  two  main 
purposes  in  view  :•  first,  the  profit  that  he  might  realize  from 
an  advance  in  gold;  and,  second,  the  advantage  that  might 
accrue  to  the  railroad  with  which  he  was  connected  through 


i82  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

an  increase  of  its  business  in  the  transportation  of  products 
from  the  West.  As  set  forth  in  Mr.  Gould's  letter,  he  enter- 
tained the  opinion,  which  rested  uix)n  satisfactory  business 
grounds,  that  an  advance  in  the  price  of  gold  would  stimulate 
the  sale  of  Western  products,  increase  the  business  of  trans- 
portation over  the  railways,  and  aid  us  in  the  payment  of  lia- 
bilities abroad.  If  the  price  of  gold  had  not  been  advanced 
beyond  a  premium  of  forty  or  perhaps  forty-five  per  cent,  all 
these  results  might  have  been  realized,  without  detriment  to 
the  public,  while  Mr.  Gould  and  his  associates  would  have 
realized  large  profits.  When  the  price  had  advanced  to  forty 
or  forty-five  per  cent,  Mr.  Gould  or  his  associates  made  calls 
upon  those  who  were  under  contracts  to  deliver  gold  to  make 
their  margins  good  or  else  to  produce  the  gold.  These  de- 
mands created  a  panic,  and  the  parties  who  had  agreed  to 
deliver  gold  entered  the  market,  and  bidding  against  each 
other,  they  carried  the  price  beyond  the  point  that  Mr.  Gould 
had  contemplated. 


XXXVI 

AN    HISTORIC    SALE    OF   UNITED    STATES 
BONDS    IN    ENGLAND 

IF  there  should  be  any  considerable  interest  in  the  history 
of  the  funding  system  of  the  United  States,  the  inter- 
est would  be  due  to  a  sale  of  bonds  some  thirty  years 
ago  and  certain  incidents  which  could  not  have  been  antici- 
pated, which  arose  from  the  execution  of  the  trust. 

In  the  month  of  July,  1868,  a  bill  for  funding  the  national 
debt  which  had  passed  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  was 
reported,  without  amendments,  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

When  the  bill  was  under  consideration  in  the  House,  I 
proposed  a  substitute.  In  the  debate  of  July  21  I  made  a 
statement  of  the  nature  of  my  substitute,  and  I  reproduce  an 
extract  which  sets  forth  the  first  step  in  a  policy  which  cul- 
minated in  the  Act  for  Funding  the  Public  Debt,  and  which 
was  approved  by  President  Grant  July  14,  1870: 

"  The  amendment  to  which  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of 

the  House  provides  for  the  funding  of  $1,200,000,000  of  the 

public  debt  $400,000,000  payable  in  fifteen  years  @  5  per 

cent  interest,  $400,000,000  payable  in  twenty  years  @  4^ 

per  cent  interest,  and  $400,000,000  payable  in  twenty-five 

years  @  3.65  per  cent  interest,  the  latter  sum  of  $400,000,- 

000   payable,    principal   and    interest,   at   the  option   of   the 

takers,  either  in  the  United  States,  or  in  London,  Paris,  or 

Frankfort." 

T83 


1 84  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

At  that  time  I  had  not  entertained  the  thought  that  I  might 
come  to  be  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department.  Indeed,  I 
had  no  other  purpose  in  public  Hfe  ilian  to  remain  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

I  had  had  experience  on  the  executive  side  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  also  on  the  legislative  side,  and  I  had  a  fixed 
opinion  in  favor  of  the  latter  form  of  service. 

As  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  I  proposed  a  bill  in  1869  in 
the  line  of  the  substitute  for  the  bill  of  the  Committee  on 
Ways  and  Means  which  I  had  challenged  in  July,  1868.  The 
bill  proposed  an  issue  of  three  classes  of  bonds,  each  of  four 
hundred  million  dollars,  which  were  to  mature  at  different 
dates,  and  to  bear  interest  at  the  rates  of  5,  4^/2,  and  4  per 
cent.  It  was  further  provided  that  the  principal  and  interest 
of  the  bonds  bearing  the  lowest  rate  should  be  made  payable 
either  in  the  United  States,  or  at  Frankfort,  Paris,  or  Lon- 
don, as  the  takers  might  prefer.  The  provision  was  rejected 
through  the  influence  of  General  Schenck,  who  had  then  re- 
turned recently  from  Europe,  and  with  the  opinion  that  the 
concession  involved  an  impairment  of  national  honor.  As  a 
substitute  for  the  feature  so  rejected,  I  originated  a  plan  for 
the  issue  of  registered  bonds,  upon  the  condition  that  the  in- 
terest could  be  paid  in  checks  to  be  forwarded  by  the  mails 
to  the  holders  of  bonds  at  the  places  designated  by  them  in 
any  part  of  the  world.  This  plan  is  far  superior  to  the  first 
suggestion,  as  it  is  susceptible  of  a  much  wider  application, 

I  have  received  from  Mr.  Roberts,  the  Treasurer  of  the 
United  States,  the  following  letter  and  statement : 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND  185 


Statement  Showing  the  Proportion  of  United  States 
Bonds  Outstanding  January  25,  1900,  on  Which 
Interest  is  Paid  by  Check. 


title  of  loan. 

Total  issue. 

Registered 

bonds  on 

which  interest 

is  paid  by 

cneck. 

Percentage 

of  bonds  on 

which  interest 

is  paid  by 

check. 

Funded  loan  of  1891  continued  at  2  per 
cent 

$25,364,500 
545,342,950 
95,009,700 
162,315,400 
168,679,000 

125,364,500 
478,195,600 
64,615,650 
117,997,200 
109,450,060 

Four  per  cent  funded  loan  of  1907 

Five  per  cent  loan  of  1904 

87.69 
68.01 

Four  per  cent  loan  of  1925 

72.70 
55.09 

Three  per  cent  ten-twenties  of  1898 

Totals 

$996,711,550 

$795,623,030 

77.49 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT. 

Office  of  the  Treasurer^ 

Washington,  D.  C. 

January  25,  1900. 
Honorable  George  S.  Boutwell, 

Boston,   Massachusetts. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  enclose  to 
you  a  table  showing  by  classes  of  bonds  the  percentage  of 
interest  paid  by  checks.  The  interest  on  all  registered  bonds 
is  now  so  paid.  Only  the  coupon  bonds,  by  their  nature,  are 
differently  treated. 

Your  plan  has  worked  admirably,  and  the  drift  is  slowly 
from  the  coupon  to  the  registered  form,  and  so  to  an  increase 
of  the  payment  of  interest  by  checks. 

With  kind  regards,  Yours  very  truly, 

(Signed)  Ellis  H.  Roberts, 

Treasurer  of  the  United  States. 

This  plan  has  been  adopted  by  corporations  that  are  bor- 
rowers of  large  sums  of  money  upon  an  issue  of  bonds,  and 
the  use  of  the  system  is  very  general  in  the  United  States. 


1 86  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

In  my  report  to  Congress  in  December,  1869,  I  made  rec- 
ommendation of  tlie  Funding  Bill,  and  I  placed  copies  of  the 
bill  that  I  had  prepared  in  the  hands  of  the  Finance  Com- 
mittee of  the  Senate,  and  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on 
W^ays  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

When  the  bill  became  a  law,  the  authorized  issue  of  five 
per  cent  bonds  was  limited  to  two  hundred  million  dollars, 
and  the  issue  of  four  per  cent  was  raised  to  twelve  hundred 
million.  Simultaneously  with  the  passage  of  the  Funding 
Bill  of  July,  1870,  the  war  between  France  and  Prussia 
opened,  and  the  opportunity  for  negotiations  was  postponed 
until  the  early  months  of  the  year  1871.  In  these  later  years, 
when  bonds  of  the  United  States  have  been  sold  upon  the 
basis  of  their  par  value  at  two  per  cent  income,  it  is  difficult  to 
realize  that  in  1869  ^^e  six  per  cent  bonds  of  the  United 
States  were  worth  in  gold  only  83  5-10  cents  to  the  dollar. 
The  first  attempt  to  dispose  of  the  five  per  cent  bonds  was 
made  by  the  Treasury  Department  through  an  invitation  to 
the  public  to  subscribe  for  the  bonds,  payment  to  be  made  in 
the  currency  of  the  country,  or  by  an  exchange  of  outstand- 
ing five-twenty  bonds  which  bore  interest  at  the  rate  of  six 
per  cent.  The  subscriptions  reached  the  sum  of  sixty-six  mil- 
lion dollars,  of  which  the  national  banks  were  subscribers  to 
the  amount  of  sixty-four  million,  leaving  two  million  only  as 
the  loan  to  the  general  public.  A  portion  of  the  amount  taken 
by  the  banks  was  for  the  account  of  patrons  and  clients. 
This  experience  justified  the  opinion  that  future  efforts  with 
the  general  public  would  be  unsuccessful,  while  the  credit  of 
the  country  was  not  established  and  placed  beyond  the  influ- 
ence of  cavillers  and  doubters. 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that  the  aid  of  banks  and 
bankers  became  important  for  the  furtherance  of  subscrip- 
tions,  in  view   of  the   fact   that   they   could   give  personal 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND   187 

service  of  a  nature  not  possible  in  the  case  of  salaried  offi- 
cers of  the  Government,  nor  compatible  with  their  daily 
duties. 

It  is  not  easy,  in  this  age  of  comparative  freedom  and 
power  in  financial  affairs,  to  comprehend  that  in  the  year 
1 87 1  the  long  established  bankers  of  New  York,  Amsterdam, 
and  London,  either  declined  or  neglected  the  opportunity  to 
negotiate  the  five  per  cent  coin  bonds  of  the  United  States 
upon  the  basis  of  their  par  value.  It  may  not  be  out  of  place 
for  me  to  mention  Mr.  Morton,  of  the  house  of  Morton,  Bliss 
&  Co.,  as  an  exception  to  the  bankers  of  Europe  and  the 
United  States. 

It  was  in  the  same  months  of  1871  that  I  recommended  the 
issue  of  a  four  per  cent  fifty-year  bond  as  the  basis  of  the 
currency  to  be  issued  by  the  national  banks.  This  proposi- 
tion, which  would  have  been  advantageous  to  the  banks,  in  an 
increasing  ratio  as  the  value  of  money  diminished,  was  de- 
feated by  the  organized  opposition  of  the  banks  through  an 
effective  lobby  that  was  assembled  in  the  city  of  Washington. 
Such  was  the  public  sentiment  in  the  year  1871,  even  in  the 
presence  of  these  important  facts,  that  in  the  month  of  De- 
cember I  was  able  to  say  in  my  annual  report  that  the  debt 
had  been  diminished  during  the  next  preceding  year  in  the 
sum  of  ninety-four  million  dollars,  and  that  the  total  decrease 
from  March  i,  1869,  to  December  i,  1871,  was  over  two 
hundred  and  seventy-seven  million  dollars. 

It  was  in  this  situation  of  affairs  that  Messrs.  Jay  Cooke  & 
Co.  proposed  to  undertake  the  sale  in  London,  by  subscrip- 
tion, of  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  million  five  per  cent 
bonds  then  unsold.  Authority  was  given  to  Cooke  &  Co.  to 
proceed  with  the  undertaking,  and  when  the  books  were 
closed,  September  i,  I  was  informed  that  the  loan  had  been 
taken  in  full.     By  the  terms  prescribed  by  Cooke  &  Co.,  the 


1 88  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

subscribers  deposited  five  per  cent  as  security  for  the  validity 
of  their  subscriptions.  The  bonds  were  to  be  delivered  the 
first  day  of  December. 

Upon  the  receipt  of  the  information  that  the  undertaking 
had  been  a  success,  the  bonds  were  prepared,  and  the  Hon. 
William  A.  Richardson,  then  an  assistant  secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  was  designated  as  the  agent  of  the  department  for 
the  delivery  of  the  bonds.  The  bonds  were  placed  in  safes,  on 
each  of  which  there  were  three  locks.  The  clerks  were  sent 
over  in  different  vessels,  and  the  keys  were  so  distributed 
among  them,  that  there  were  not  keys  in  any  one  vessel  by 
which  any  one  of  the  safes  could  be  opened. 

The  success  of  the  subscription  gave  rise  to  an  unexpected 
difficulty. 

At  that  time  there  were  outstanding  one  hundred  and 
ninety-four  million  ten-forty  United  States  bonds  that  carried 
interest  at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent. 

It  was  a  singular  coincidence,  and  a  coincidence  probably 
not  due  to  natural  causes,  that  some  five  per  cent  bonds,  hav- 
ing fifteen  years  to  run,  should  be  at  par,  and  that  other  five 
per  cent  bonds  that  might  run  thirty  years  should  fall  below 
par  in  the  same  market.  In  the  three  months  from  August 
to  December,  these  ten-forties  were  quoted  as  low  as  ninety- 
seven,  or  even  for  a  time  at  ninety-six.  Cooke  became  anx- 
ious, if  not  alarmed,  lest  the  rate  should  fall  below  ninety- 
five,  and  consequently  lest  the  subscribers  should  refuse  to 
meet  their  obligations.  Early  on  the  morning  of  the  first 
Monday  in  December,  I  received  the  information  that  the 
bonds  were  taken  as  soon  as  the  offices  were  open.  I  may 
mention  in  passing  that  Cooke  &  Co.  paid  for  the  bonds  as 
they  were  delivered,  either  in  coin  or  in  five-twenty  bonds. 

As  bonds  were  taken,  and  as  payments  were  made,  a  diffi- 
culty appeared  which  had  been  anticipated,  but  not  in  its  ful- 
ness.   The  proceeds  from  the  sales  of  the  five  per  cent  bonds 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND  189 

were  pledged  to  the  redemption  of  six  per  cent  five-twenty 
bonds,  reckoned  at  their  par  value. 

It  was  provided  by  the  statute  that  whenever  five-twenty 
bonds  were  called,  a  notice  of  ninety  days  should  be  given, 
when  interest  would  cease.  Thus  it  happened  that  whenever 
a  bond  was  called  it  was  worth  par  and  interest  to  the  end  of 
the  ninety  days.  Of  the  called  bonds  some  were  in  America, 
and  the  owners  did  not  choose  to  present  them  in  London  in 
exchange  for  five  per  cent  bonds,  nor  for  coin.  Hence  it 
happened  that  of  the  total  proceeds  of  the  five  per  cent  bonds, 
about  twenty  million  dollars  were  paid  in  gold  coin  by  Cooke 
&  Co.  This  coin  was  deposited  in  the  Bank  of  England,  but 
upon  such  terms  as  were  imposed  by  the  governors : 

( 1 )  The  deposits  must  be  made  in  the  name  of  William  A. 
Richardson.  This  was  done,  but  a  statement  was  made  by 
Judge  Richardson  that  the  deposit  was  the  property  of  the 
United  States. 

(2)  The  gold  was  not  to  be  taken  out  of  the  country. 
This  stipulation  was  in  the  line  of  our  policy,  which  was  to 
invest  the  entire  sum  in  five-twenty  bonds,  whenever  they 
could  be  bought  at  par.  The  opportunity  came  in  a  manner 
that  was  not  anticipated.  The  documents  referred  to  are  of 
historical  value,  and  they  are  therefore  inserted  as  fol- 
lows: 

(a)  A  declaration  of  trust  by  William  A.  Richardson,  As- 
sistant Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  dated  at  London,  Decem- 
ber 28,  1 87 1. 

(b)  Letter  of  William  A.  Richardson,  Assistant  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  to  John  P.  Bigelow,  Chief  of  the  Loan  Di- 
vision of  the  Treasury,  dated  also  at  London,  December  28, 

1871. 

(c)  Letter  of  George  Forbes,  Chief  Cashier  of  the  Bank 
of  England,  to  Judge  Richardson,  dated  January  4,  1872. 


190  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

(d)  Letter  of  Judge  Richardson  to  George  Lyall,  Gov- 
ernor of  the  Bank  of  England,  dated  January  15,  1872. 

(e)  Reply  to  the  same  by  George  Forbes,  Chief  Cashier, 
dated  January  17,  1872. 

(f)  William  A.  Richardson's  report  of  January  25,  1872. 

(a)  Declaration  by  William  A.  Richardson 

Whereas,  I  have  this  day  deposited  in  my  name,  as  As- 
sistant Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  U.  S.  A.,  in  the  Bank  of 
England,  two  million  five  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  pounds 
sterling,  and  shall  probably  hereafter  make  further  deposits 
on  the  same  account : 

Now  I  hereby  declare  that  said  amount  and  deposits,  pres- 
ent and  future,  are  official  and  belong  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  and  not  to  me  personally  that  the  moneys 
so  deposited  are  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  five  per  cent 
bonds  of  the  "  Funded  Loan  ";  that  whatever  money  I  may 
at  any  time  have  in  said  Bank  under  said  account,  will  be  the 
property  of  the  United  States  Government,  held  by  me  offi- 
cially as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  acting  under 
orders  from  the  Secretary;  that  the  same  is,  and  will  continue 
to  be  subject  to  the  draft,  order,  and  control  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  independently  of,  and  superior  to  my  au- 
thority, whenever  he  so  elects,  and  that  upon  his  assuming 
control  thereof,  my  power  over  the  same  will  wholly  cease. 
In  case  of  my  decease  before  said  account  is  closed,  the 
money  on  deposit  will  not  belong  to  my  estate,  but  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal, 
(Signed)  William  A.  Richardson^ 

Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  U.  S.  A. 

London,  England,  December  28,  1871, 

Witnesses: 
Jno.  p.  Bigelow,   E.  W.  Bowen,   Geo.  L.  Warren. 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND   191 

(b)  Judge  Richardson  to  John  P.  Bigelow 

41  Lombard  St.^  London^  England, 

December  28,  1871. 

To  John  P.  Bigelow^  Chief  of  the  Loan  Division,  Sec- 
retary's Oifice,  Treasury  DeparUnent,  U.  S.  A. 

I  have  this  day  deposited  in  the  Bank  of  England,  in  my 
name  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  two  million  five 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  pounds  sterling  money,  belonging 
to  the  United  States,  received  in  payment  of  five  per  cent 
bonds  of  the  Funded  Loan  delivered  here  in  London. 

All  money  hereafter  received  for  future  delivery  of  bonds 
will  be  deposited  to  the  same  account. 

Herewith  I  hand  you  a  declaration  of  trust  signed  by  me 
declaring  that  said  account  and  moneys  belong  to  the  United 
States,  and  not  to  me  personally,  also  the  Deposit  Book  and 
a  book  of  blank  checks  numbered  from  35,101  to  35,150,  both 
inclusive,  received  from  said  Bank,  all  of  which  you  will  take 
into  your  custody  and  carefully  keep  in  one  of  the  iron  safes 
sent  here  from  the  department  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
books  are  kept. 

This  money,  and  all  the  money  deposited  in  said  bank  on 
the  account  aforesaid,  will  be  drawn  and  used  only  in  accord- 
ance with  the  orders  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
redeem  or  purchase  five-twenty  bonds  and  matured  coupons, 
or  such  other  and  further  orders  as  he  may  make  in  relation 
thereto. 

When  money  is  to  be  drawn  to  pay  for  bonds  or  coupons, 
it  must  be  drawn  only  by  filling  up  a  check  from  the  book  of 
checks  above  referred  to,  and  you  will  open  an  account  in 
which  you  will  enter  the  amount  of  all  deposits,  the  number 
and  amount  of  each  check  drawn,  specifying  also  to  whom  the 
same  is  made  payable  and  on  what  account  it  is  drawn. 


192  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

The  checks  will  be  filled  up  by  Mr,  Prentiss  of  the  Regis- 
ter's Office,  who  will  place  his  check  mark  on  the  upper  left 
corner,  and  will  enter  the  same  in  the  book.  You  will  then 
carefully  examine  the  check,  see  that  it  is  correctly  drawn  for 
the  amount  actually  payable  for  bonds  or  coupons  received 
and  properly  recorded,  and  you  will,  when  found  correct, 
place  your  check  mark  on  the  right  hand  upper  corner  before 
the  same  is  signed  by  me.  All  checks  will  be  signed  by  me 
with  my  full  name  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
as  this  is  signed. 

(Signed)  William  A.  Richardson, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  U.  S.  A. 

(c)  Mr.  Forbes  to  Judge  Richardson 

Bank  of  England,  E.  C, 

Janxiary  4,  1872. 

Hon.  W.  a.  Richardson,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States,  41,  Lombard  Street. 
Sir:  To  preclude  any  possible  misunderstanding  hereafter 
as  to  the  character  of  the  drawing  account  opened  in  your 
name,  I  am  instructed  by  the  Governors  to  communicate  to 
you  in  writing  that,  in  conformity  with  the  rule  of  the  Bank, 
the  account  is  considered  a  personal  one;  that  the  Governors 
have  admitted  the  words  appended  to  your  name  merely  as  an 
honorary  designation;  and  the  bank  take  no  cognizance  of, 
or  responsibility  with  reference  to  the  real  ownership,  or  in- 
tended application  of  the  sums  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the 

account. 

I  am,  sir. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)         George  Forbes, 

Chief  Cashier. 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND   193 

(d)  Judge  Richardson  to  Mr.  Lyall 

41  Lombard  Street^  London,  England, 

January  15,  1872. 
George  Lyall,  Esq., 

Governor  of  the  Bank  of  England. 

Dear  Sir:  Referring  to  the  several  conversations  which  I 
have  had  with  you,  and  with  your  principal  cashier,  Mr, 
Forbes,  relative  to  the  manner  and  form  of  keeping  the 
account  which  I  desire  to  have  in  the  bank,  I  beg  leave  to 
renew  in  writing  my  request  heretofore  made  to  you  orally, 
that  the  account  of  money  deposited  by  me  may  stand  in  the 
name  of  Hon.  George  S.  Boutv/ell,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
U.  S.  A.,,  and  myself.  Assistant  Secretary,  jointly  and  sever- 
ally, so  as  to  be  subject  to  a  several  draft  of  either,  and  of 
the  survivor,  in  case  of  the  death  of  either  one. 

I  suppose  I  must  regard  the  letter  of  Mr.  Forbes  to  me, 
dated  January  4,  1872,  and  written  under  instructions  from 
the  Governors  of  the  Bank  as  expressing  your  final  conclu- 
sion that  the  account  in  whatever  form  it  may  be  kept,  must 
be  considered  a  personal  one. 

You  know  my  anxiety  to  have  my  deposits  received  by  the 
Bank,  and  entered  in  such  way  that  in  case  of  my  death  the 
balance  may  be  drawn  at  once  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury or  some  other  officer  of  the  Government,  and  although 
you  are  unwilling  to  regard  the  account  as  an  official  one,  I 
hope  that  on  further  consideration  you  will  allow  it  to  be 
opened  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Boutwell  and  myself  jointly  and 
severally  as  above  stated.     I  am,  sir. 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)     William  A.  Richardson, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  the  United  States  Treasury  Depart- 
ment. 


194  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

(e)  Mr.  Forbes  to  Judge  Richardson 

Bank  of  England,  E.  C, 

January  17,  1872. 
Hon  W.  a.  Richardson, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 

of  the  United  States,  41,  Lombard  St. 
Sir:  I  am  directed  by  the  Governor  to  acknowledge  the 
receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  15th  inst.,  requesting  that  the  ac- 
count of  money  deposited  by  you  in  the  Bank  may  stand  in 
the  name  of  the  Hon.  George  S.  Boutwell,  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  U.  S.  A.,  and  yourself,  the  Assistant  Secretary, 
jointly  and  severally,  so  as  to  be  subject  to  the  several  draft 
of  either,  and  of  the  survivor  in  case  of  death  of  either  one. 
I  am  to  inform  you  that  the  Bank  is  prepared  to  open  an 
account  in  this  form,  as  a  personal  account ;  but  it  is  essential 
that  Mr.  Boutwell  should  join  in  the  request  and  concur  in 
the  conditions  proposed  before  each  party  can  in  that  case 
draw  upon  the  account.     I  am,  sir, 

Your  obedient   servant, 

(Signed)  George  Forbes^ 

Chief  Cashier. 

(f)  Judge  Richardson's  Report 

41,  Lombard  Street,  London, 

January  25,  1872. 
Hon.  George  S.  Boutwell, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Dear  Sir:  It  is  my  purpose  in  this  letter  to  give  you  an 
account  of  the  way  in  which  I  have  kept  the  money  arising 
from  the  sale  of  the  Funded  Loan,  and  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  drawn  from  time  to  time  to  pay  for  bonds  pur- 
chased and  redeemed. 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND   195 

Immediately  after  the  first  of  December,  1871,  the  money 
began  to  accumulate  very  rapidly.  Up  to  the  first  of  Decem- 
ber no  money  whatever  had  been  received,  all  bonds  delivered 
having-  been  paid  for  by  the  called  bonds  and  coupons  or 
secured  by  deposit  of  other  bonds;  but  on  the  second  day  of 
that  month  nearly  two  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  cash  were 
paid  to  me;  then  on  the  fourth,  nearly  five  millions  of  dollars 
more;  and  on  the  fifth,  above  three  millions,  and  so  on  in 
different  sums  till  the  present  time. 

Of  course  it  was  wholly  impracticable  to  receive,  handle, 
count  and  keep  on  hand  such  large  amounts  of  gold  coin, 
weighing  between  a  ton  and  three  quarters  and  two  tons  to 
each  million  of  dollars.  At  one  time  my  account  showed 
more  than  sixteen  millions  of  dollars  on  hand,  and  to  have 
withdrawn  from  circulation  that  amount  of  coin  would  have 
produced  a  panic  in  the  London  market;  and  the  risk  in 
having  it  hoarded  in  any  place  within  my  reach  would  have 
been  immense,  especially  as  it  would  have  soon  been  known 
where  it  was. 

I  ascertained  that  there  would  be  some  difficulty  in  keeping 
an  official  Government  account  in  the  Bank  of  England,  and 
I  did  not  feel  authorized,  or  justified  in  my  own  judgment, 
in  entrusting  so  much  money  to  any  other  banking  insti- 
tution in  this  city.  I  found,  also,  that  the  Bank  of  England 
never  issues  certificates  of  deposit,  as  do  our  banks  in  the 
United  States.  But  it  issues  "  post  notes,"  which  are  very 
nearly  like  its  ordinary  demand  notes,  but  payable  to  order, 
and  on  seven  days'  time,  thus  differing  only  in  the  matter  of 
time  from  certificates  of  deposit.  Availing  myself  of  this 
custom  of  the  Bank  of  England,  I  put  all  the  money  into  post 
notes,  and  locked  them  up  in  one  of  the  safes  from  which 
the  bonds  had  been  taken.  This  I  regarded  as  a  safe  method 
of  keeping  the  funds,  and  I  anticipated  no  further  difficulty. 

But  when  the  Bank  made  its  next  monthly  or  weekly  return 


196  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  its  condition,  and  published  it  in  all  of  the  newspapers 
as  usual,  the  attention  of  all  the  financial  agents,  bankers, 
and  financial  writers  of  the  daily  money  articles  in  the  jour- 
nals was  immediately  attracted  to  the  sudden  increase  of  the 
"  post  notes  "  outstanding,  and  the  unusually  large  amount 
of  them,  so  many  times  greater  than  had  ever  been  known 
before.  They  were  immensely  alarmed  lest  the  notes  should 
come  in  for  redemption  in  a  few  days,  and  the  coin  therefor 
should  be  withdrawn  from  London  and  taken  to  a  foreign 
country ;  and  lest  there  should  be  a  panic  on  account  thereof. 
Some  of  the  financial  writers  said  they  belonged  to  Germany, 
and  that  they  represented  coin  which  must  soon  be  trans- 
mitted to  Berlin.  The  Bank  officers  themselves,  although 
they  knew  very  well  that  these  notes  belonged  to  the  United 
States,  were  not  less  alarmed  because  they  feared  that  I 
would  withdraw  the  money  to  send  it  to  New  York,  which 
they  knew  would  make  trouble  in  the  London  Exchange. 
Money,  which  for  a  short  time  before  had  been  at  the  high 
rate  of  interest,  for  this  place  of  five  per  cent,  had  become 
abundant,  and  the  people  were  demanding  of  the  Bank  a 
reduction  in  the  rate;  but  so  timid  were  they  about  these 
post  notes  that  they  did  not  change  the  rate  until  I  took 
measures  to  allay  their  fears.  This  I  did  because  I  thought 
it  would  be  injurious  and  prejudicial  to  the  Funded  Loan  to 
have  a  panic  in  London,  in  which  the  market  price  of  the  new 
loan  would  drop  considerably  below  par  just  at  a  time  when 
its  price  and  popularity  were  gradually  rising,  and  just  as 
it  was  coming  into  great  favor  with  a  new  class  of  investors 
in  England,  the  immensely  rich  but  timid  conservatives. 

I  determined  to  open  a  deposit  account  with  the  Bank  of 
England,  and  in  doing  so  experienced  the  difficulties  which  I 
anticipated.  I  assured  the  officers  that  the  money  was  Gov- 
ernment (U.  S.)  money,  which  I  did  not  intend,  and  was 
not  instructed  to  take  home  with  me;    but  which  I  should 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND   197 

use  in  London  in  redeeming  bonds  and  coupons,  and  should 
leave  in  the  bank  on  deposit  unless,  by  the  peculiarity  of 
their  rules,  I  should  be  obliged  to  withdraw  it.  They  ob- 
jected to  taking  the  money  as  a  Government  deposit,  or  as 
an  official  deposit  in  my  name,  having  some  vague  idea  that 
if  they  took  it  and  opened  an  official  Government  account 
they  should  be  liable  for  the  appropriation  of  the  money 
unless  documents  from  the  United  States  were  filed  with 
them  taking  away  that  liability,  but  they  could  not  tell  me 
exactly  what  documents  they  wanted  nor  from  whom  they 
must  come.  They  did,  however,  agree  to  open  an  account 
with  me,  and  that  was  the  best  I  could  do.  In  signing  my 
name  to  their  book,  I  added  my  official  title,  and  when,  some 
time  after,  I  came  to  drawing  checks,  I  signed  in  the  same 
way.  This  brought  from  the  officers  a  letter  which  I  annex 
hereto,  saying  that  my  deposit  would  be  regarded  as  a  private 
and  personal  one. 

What  I  was  most  anxious  to  provide  for  was  the  power  in 
some  United  States  officer  to  draw  the  money  in  case  of  my 
death  (knowing  the  uncertainty  of  life),  without  the  delay, 
expense,  and  trouble  which  must  necessarily  arise,  if  it  stood 
wholly  to  my  personal  credit.  I  asked  the  officers  to  allow 
it  to  stand  in  your  name  as  Secretary  and  mine  as  Assistant 
Secretary,  jointly  and  severally,  so  as  to  be  drawn  upon  the 
several  check  of  either,  and  by  the  survivor  in  case  of  the 
death  of  either  one.  I  suggested  other  arrangements  which 
would  have  the  same  result,  but  they  said  their  rules  pre- 
vented their  agreeing  to  my  requests,  that  they  were  con- 
servative and  did  not  like  to  introduce  anything  new  into 
their  customs. 

On  the  15th  day  of  January,  1872,  I  renewed  my  request 
in  writing,  after  having  had  several  conversations  with  the 
officers  on  the  subject,  and  received  an  answer  which,  with  the 
letter  of  request,  is  hereto  annexed. 


198  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

In  this,  their  most  recent  communication,  they  express  a 
wilUngness  to  enter  the  account  in  our  joint  names  as  I 
suggested,  regarding  it,  however,  as  a  "  personal  account " 
and  requiring  that  you  should  "  join  in  the  request  and 
concur  in  the  conditions  proposed  before  either  party  can 
in  that  case  draw  upon  the  account." 

As  I  must  now  almost  daily  draw  from  the  account  for 
money  with  which  to  pay  bonds,  I  cannot  join  your  name 
therein  until  you  have  sent  me  a  written  compliance  with 
the  conditions  which  they  set  forth,  because  to  do  so  would 
shut  me  out  from  the  account  altogether  for  several  weeks. 

Besides,  having  no  instructions  from  you  on  the  subject, 
I  don't  know  that  you  would  care  to  give  written  directions 
as  to  the  deposit.  I  know  very  well  that,  in  case  of  my 
sudden  decease,  you  would  be  glad  enough  to  find  that  you 
could  at  once  avail  yourself  of  the  whole  amount  of  money 
here  on  deposit,  and  so  I  should  have  joined  your  name  as 
I  have  stated.  Now  you  can  do  as  you  please.  I  have 
taken  every  possible  precaution  within  my  power,  and  have 
no  fear  that  the  arrangements  are  insufficient  to  protect  the 
Government  in  any  contingency  whatever.  With  the  cor- 
respondence which  has  passed  between  the  officers  of  the 
Bank  and  myself,  and  our  conversation  together,  the  account 
is  sufficiently  well  known  to  them  as  a  U.  S.  Government 
deposit,  and  is  fully  enough  stamped  with  that  character,  as 
I  intended  it  should  be,  however  much  they  may  ignore  it 
now. 

But  for  still  greater  caution,  I  made  the  written  declara- 
tion of  trust  on  the  very  day  of  the  first  deposit,  signed 
and  sealed  by  me,  declaring  the  money  and  account  as  be- 
longing to  our  Government,  and  not  to  me,  a  copy  of  which 
is  hereto  annexed. 

I  also  gave  written  instruction  to  Messrs.  Bigelow  and 
Prentiss  to  draw  all  the  checks,   and  how  to  draw  them 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND   199 

and  keep  an  account  thereof.  As  I  make  all  my  purchases 
through  Jay  Cooke,  McCullough  &  Co.,  every  check  is  in 
fact  payable  to  that  house,  so  that  the  account  is  easily  kept, 
and  the  transactions  cannot  be  mingled  with  others,  for 
there  are  no  others.     I  annex  a  copy  of  these  instructions. 

This,  I  believe,  will  give  you  a  pretty  correct  idea  of  the 
difficulties  which  have  been  presented  to  me  in  the  matter  of 
taking,  keeping,  and  paying  out  the  money  arising  from  the 
sale  of  the  bonds,  and  the  manner  in  which  I  have  met  them. 

I  may  add  that  when  the  officers  of  the  Bank  were  satisfied 
that  I  was  not  to  withdraw  the  money  and  take  it  to  New 
York,  they  reduced  the  rate  of  interest  and  there  has  been 
an  easy  market  ever  since. 

There  are  now  on  deposit  more  than  twelve  million  dol- 
lars ;  but  I  hope  it  will  be  reduced  very  fast  next  month.  Had 
you  not  sent  over  the  last  ten  million  of  bonds,  we  should 
have  been  able  to  close  up  very  soon.  I  hope  now  that 
you  will  make  another  call  of  twenty  million  at  least,  because 
I  think  it  would  enable  us  to  purchase  more  rapidly. 

I  annex: 

( 1 )  Copy  of  declaration  of  trust. 

(2)  Copy  of  instructions  for  drawing  checks. 

(3)  Copy  of  letter  from  Cashier  of  Bank  of  England, 
stating  that  the  account  would  be  considered  personal. 

(4)  Copy  of  my  letter  to  the  Governor  of  the  Bank,  asking 
that  your  name  might  be  joined. 

(5)  Copy  of  reply  to  last  mentioned  letter. 

I  am,  very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)     William  A.  Richardson. 

When  Cooke  &  Co.  had  completed  their  undertaking,  the 
deposits  in  the  Bank  of  England  exceeded  fifteen  million 
dollars,  and  for  three  months  they  were  for  the  most  part 


200  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

unavailable,  as  the  five-twenty  bonds  which  had  not  matured 
under  the  calls  that  had  been  made  were  above  par  in  the 
market.  It  was  a  condition  of  the  loan  that  the  five-twenty 
bonds  redeemed  should  equal  the  5  per  cent  bonds  that  had 
been  issued,  both  issues  to  be  reckoned  at  their  par  value. 

In  the  month  of  April,  1872,  the  Commissioners  who  had 
been  designated  under  the  Treaty  of  Washington  of  1871  to 
ascertain  and  determine  the  character  and  magnitude  of  the 
claims  that  had  been  preferred  by  the  United  States  against 
Great  Britain,  growing  out  of  the  depredations  committed 
by  the  "  Alabama  "  and  her  associate  cruisers,  were  about  to 
meet  at  Geneva  for  the  discharge  of  their  duties. 

The  administration  had  appointed  the  Hon.  J.  C.  Bancroft 
Davis,  the  most  accomplished  diplomatist  of  the  country,  as 
the  agent  of  the  United  States,  and  the  preparation  of  "  the 
Case  of  the  United  States  "  was  placed  in  his  hands. 

The  British  Ministry  discovered — or  they  fancied  that 
there  was  concealed  in  covert  language — a  claim  for  dam- 
ages, known  as  "  consequential  or  indirect  damages."  Mr. 
Sumner  had  asserted  a  claim  for  "  consequential  damages  " 
— in  other  words,  a  claim  to  compensation  for  the  value  of 
American  shipping  that  had  been  driven  from  the  ocean  and 
made  worthless  through  fear  of  the  cruisers  that  had  been 
fitted  out  in  British  ports. 

This  claim,  in  the  extreme  form  in  which  it  had  been  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  Sumner,  had  been  relinquished  by  the  Admin- 
istration, and  a  present  reading  of  "  the  Case  of  the  United 
States  "  may  not  justify  the  construction  that  was  put  upon 
it  by  the  British  Ministry. 

Nevertheless,  the  Administration  received  notice  that 
Great  Britain  would  not  be  represented  at  the  Geneva  Con- 
ference. 

The  subject  was  considered  by  the  President  and  Cabinet 
on  three  consecutive  days  at  called  sessions.     At  the  final 


SALE  OF  UNITED  STATES  BONDS  IN  ENGLAND  201 

meeting  I  handed  a  memorandum  to  the  President,  which  he 
passed  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  memorandum  was 
not  read  to  the  Cabinet. 

Mr.  Adams,  the  Commissioner  for  the  United  States,  had 
not  then  left  the  country.  By  a  despatch  from  the  Secretary 
of  State  Mr.  Adams  was  asked  to  meet  me  at  the  Parker 
House  in  Boston,  on  the  second  day  after  the  day  of  the  date 
of  the  despatch. 

What  occurred  at  the  meeting  may  be  best  given  through 
an  extract  from  the  diary  of  Mr.  Adams,  which  has  been 
placed  in  my  hands  by  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  Jr., 
with  the  privilege  of  its  full  and  free  use  by  me. 

The  first  entry  is  under  date  of  Saturday,  April  20,  1872, 
and  is  in  these  words :  "  Charles  brought  me  a  telegram  from 
Governor  Fish,  desiring  me  to  meet  Mr.  Boutwell,  who  will 
be  at  the  Parker  House  at  eleven  o'clock  on  Monday."  The 
second  entry  is  under  date  of  "  Monday,  22d  of  April." 

"  At  eleven  o'clock  called  on  Mr.  Boutwell,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  at  Parker's  Hotel,  according  to  agreement. 
Found  him  alone  in  his  minute  bedroom.  He  soon  opened 
his  subject — handed  over  to  me  a  packet  from  Governor 
Fish,  and  said  that  it  was  the  desire  of  the  Government, 
if  I  could  find  it  consistent  with  what  they  understood  to 
be  my  views  of  the  question  of  indirect  damages,  that  I  would 
make  such  intimation  of  them  to  persons  of  authority  in 
London  as  might  relieve  them  of  the  difficulty  which  had 
been  occasioned  by  them.  I  told  him  of  my  conversation 
held  with  the  Marquis  of  Ripon,  in  which  I  had  assumed 
the  heavy  responsibility  of  assuring  him  that  the  Govern- 
ment would  not  press  them.  I  was  glad  now  to  find  that 
I  had  not  been  mistaken.  I  should  cheerfully  do  all  in  my 
power  to  confirm  the  impression  consistently  with  my  own 
position." 

Thus,  through  Mr.  Adams,  the  claim  for  "  indirect  dam- 


202  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ages  "  was  relinquished.  When  the  fact  of  the  disturbed 
relations  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  be- 
came public  there  was  a  panic  in  the  London  stock  market; 
and  in  the  brief  period  of  eight  and  forty  hours  our  deposit 
of  twelve  million  or  more  in  the  Bank  of  England  was  con- 
verted into  five-twenty  United  States  6  per  cent  bonds,  pur- 
chased at  par. 

In  my  annual  report  for  December,  1872,  I  was  able  to 
make  this  statement : 

"  Since  my  last  annual  report  the  business  of  negotiating 
two  hundred  million  of  5  per  cent  bonds,  and  the  redemption 
of  two  hundred  million  6  per  cent  five-twenty  bonds  has 
been  completed,  and  the  accounts  have  been  settled  by  the 
accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury. 

"  Further  negotiations  of  5  per  cent  bonds  can  now  be 
made  on  the  basis  of  the  former  negotiation." 


XXXVII 

GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION 

THE  greatness  of  General  Grant  in  war,  in  civil  affairs, 
and  in  personal  qualities  which  at  once  excite  our 
admiration  and  deserve  our  commendation,  was  not 
fully  appreciated  by  the  generation  to  which  he  belonged, 
nor  can  it  be  appreciated  by  the  generations  that  can  know  of 
him  only  as  his  life  and  character  may  appear  upon  the  written 
record.  He  had  weaknesses,  and  of  some  of  them  I  may 
speak;  but  they  do  not  qualify  in  any  essential  manner  his  a  qA^ 
claim  to  greatness  in  the  particulars  named.  He  was  not  ^a  t''^ 
fortunate  in  the  circumstances  incident  to  the  organization  '^'^^^ 
of  his  Cabinet.  The  appointment  of  Mr.  Washburne  as  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  the  brief  period  of  one  or  two  weeks  was 
not  a  wise  opening  of  the  administration,  if  the  arrangement 
was  designed,  and  was  a  misfortune,  if  the  brief  term  was 
due  to  events  not  anticipated.  The  selection  of  Mr.  Fish 
compensated,  and  more  than  compensated,  for  the  errors 
which  preceded  his  appointment.  The  country  can  never 
expect  an  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  Department 
of  State  more  worthy  of  approval  and  eulogy  than  the  ad- 
ministration of  Mr.  Fish.  Apparently  we  were  then  on  the 
verge  of  war  with  Great  Britain,  and  demands  were  made  in 
very  responsible  quarters  which  offered  no  alternative  but 
war.  The  treaty  of  1871,  which  was  the  outcome  of  Mr. 
Fish's  diplomacy,  re-established  our  relations  of  friendship 
with  Great  Britain,  and  the  treaty  was  then  accepted  as  a  step 
in  the  direction  of  general  peace. 

203 


204  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

In  the  month  of  February,  1869,  I  received  an  invitation 
from  General  Grant  to  call  upon  him  on  an  evening  named 
and  at  an  hour  specified.  At  the  interview  General  Grant 
asked  me  to  take  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  As 
reasons  for  declining  the  place,  I  said  that  my  duties  and 
position  in  the  House  were  agreeable  to  me  and  that  my  serv- 
ices there  might  be  as  valuable  to  the  Administration  as  my 
services  in  the  Cabinet.  General  Grant  then  said  that  he  in- 
tended to  give  a  place  to  Massachusetts,  and  it  might  be  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  or  the  Attorney-Generalship.  He 
then  asked  for  my  advice  as  to  persons,  and  said  that  if  he 
named  an  Attorney-General  from  Massachusetts,  he  had  in 
mind  Governor  Clifford,  whom  he  had  met.  Governor  Clif- 
ford was  my  personal  friend,  he  had  been  the  Attorney- 
General  of  the  State  during  my  term  as  Governor,  he  was  a 
gentleman  of  great  urbanity  of  manner,  a  well-equipped 
lawyer,  and  as  an  advocate  he  had  secured  and  maintained 
a  good  standing  in  the  profession  and  through  many  years. 
He  had  come  into  the  Republican  Party  from  the  Webster 
wing  of  the  Whig  Party.  To  me  he  was  a  conservative,  and 
I  was  apprehensive  that  his  views  upon  questions  arising,  or 
that  might  arise,  from  our  plan  of  reconstruction  might  not 
be  in  harmony  with  the  policy  of  the  party.  Upon  this 
ground,  which  I  stated  to  General  Grant,  I  advised  against 
his  appointment.  I  named  Judge  Hoar  for  Attorney-General 
and  Governor  Claflin  for  the  Interior  Department.  I  wrote 
the  full  address  o"f  Judge  Hoar  upon  a  card,  which  I  gave 
to  General  Grant.    Judge  Hoar  was  nominated  and  confirmed. 

At  the  same  time,  Alexander  T.  Stewart,  of  New  York, 
was  nominated  and  confirmed  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
It  was  soon  discovered  that  Mr.  Stewart,  being  an  importer, 
was  ineligible  to  the  office.  Mr.  Conkling  said  there  were 
nine  statutes  in  his  way.  A  more  effectual  bar  was  in  the 
reason  on  which  the  statutes  rested,  namely,  that  no  man 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       205 

should  be  put  in  a  situation  to  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause. 
The  President  made  a  vain  effort  to  secure  legislation  for 
the  removal  of  the  bar.  Next,  Judge  Hilton,  then  Mr.  Stew- 
art's attorney,  submitted  a  deed  of  trust  by  which  Mr.  Stew- 
art relinquished  his  interest  in  the  business  during  his  term 
of  office.  The  President  submitted  that  paper  to  Chief  Justice 
Cartter  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 
The  Chief  Justice  gave  a  brief,  adverse,  oral  opinion,  and  in 
language  not  quotable  upon  a  printed  page. 

We  have  no  means  of  forming  an  opinion  of  Mr.  Stewart's 
capacity  for  administrative  work,  and  I  do  not  indulge  in  any 
conjectures.  His  nomination  was  acceptable  to  the  lead- 
ing business  interests  of  the  country,  and  in  the  city  of  New 
York  it  was  supported  generally.  He  was  a  successful  man 
of  business  and  an  accumulator  of  wealth,  and  at  that  time 
General  Grant  placed  a  high  estimate  upon  the  presence  of 
talents  by  which  men  acquire  wealth. 

Following  these  events,  there  were  early  indications  that 
Mr.  Stewart's  interest  in  the  President  had  been  diminished, 
and  gradually  he  took  on  a  dislike  to  me.  When  I  knew  of 
his  nomination,  or  when  I  knew  that  it  was  to  be  made,  I 
met  him  in  Washington  and  assured  him  of  my  disposition 
to  give  my  support  to  his  administration.  On  two  occasions 
when  I  was  in  New  York  I  made  calls  of  civility  upon  him, 
but,  as  he  made  no  recognition  in  return,  my  efforts  in  that 
direction  came  to  an  end. 

At  a  dinner  given  by  merchants  and  bankers  in  the  early 
part  of  September,  1869,  at  which  I  was  a  guest,  Mr.  Stewart 
made  a  speech  in  which  he  criticized  my  administration  of  the 
Treasury.  In  the  canvass  of  1872  the  rumor  went  abroad 
that  Mr.  Stewart  had  given  $25,000  to  the  Greeley  campaign 
fund.  In  the  month  of  October  of  that  year,  the  twenty- 
eighth  day,  perhaps,  I  spoke  at  the  Cooper  Union.  Upon 
my  arrival  in  New  York,  I  received  a  call  from  a  friend  who 


2o6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

came  with  a  message  from  Mr..  Stewart.  Mr.  Stewart  would 
not  be  at  the  meeting,  although  except  for  the  false  rumor  in 
regard  to  his  subscription  to  the  Greeley  fund,  he  should 
have  taken  pleasure  in  being  present.  As  General  Grant 
was  to  be  elected,  his  attendance  at  the  meeting  might  be 
treated  by  the  public  as  an  attempt  to  curry  favor  with  Gen- 
eral Grant  and  the  incoming  Administration. 

As  I  was  passing  to  the  hall,  a  paper  was  placed  in  my 
hands  by  a  person  who  gave  no  other  means  of  recognizing  his 
presence.  When  I  reached  the  hall  and  opened  the  paper, 
I  found  that  it  was  a  summons  to  appear  as  defendant  in  an 
action  brought  by  a  man  named  Galvin,  who  claimed  damages 
in  the  sum  of  $3,000,000.  At  the  close  of  the  meeting  and 
when  the  fact  became  known  one  gentleman  said  to  me:  "  I 
do  not  see  how  you  could  have  spoken  after  such  a  summons." 

I  said  in  reply :  "If  the  suit  had  been  for  $3,000  only,  it 
might  have  given  me  some  uneasiness,  as  a  recovery  would 
have  involved  payment.  A  judgment  of  $3,000,000  implies 
impossibility  of  payment." 

I  had  no  knowledge  of  Galvin,  but  his  letters  of  advice  were 
found  on  the  files  of  the  Treasury.  Even  after  the  suit,  I 
did  not  examine  them  for  the  purpose  of  forming  an  opinion 
of  their  value  or  want  of  value.  Galvin  alleged  in  his  declar- 
ation that  he  had  furnished  the  financial  policy  that  I  had 
adopted,  that  it  had  benefited  the  country  to  the  amount 
of  $300,000,000  and  more,  and  that  a  claim  of  $3,000,000  was 
a  moderate  claim.  Under  the  statute,  the  Department  of 
Justice  assumed  the  defence.  The  case  lingered,  Galvin  died, 
and  the  case  followed. 

At  the  election  of  1872,  I  voted  at  Groton  in  the  morning, 
and  in  the  afternoon  I  went  to  New  York,  to  find  that  General 
Grant  had  been  re-elected  by  a  sufficient  majority.  On  the 
morning  of  the  next  day,  I  left  the  hotel  with  time  for  a  call 
upon  General  Dix,  who  had  been  elected  Governor,  and  for  a 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       207 

call  upon  Thurlow  Weed.  General  Dix  was  not  at  home. 
Notwithstanding  the  criticisms  of  Thurlow  Weed  as  a  man- 
ager of  political  affairs  in  the  State  of  New  York  and  in  the 
country,  I  had  reasons  for  regarding  him  with  favor,  although 
I  had  never  favored  the  aspirations  of  Mr.  Seward,  his  chief. 
When  I  was  organizing  the  Internal  Revenue  Office  in  1862- 
1863,  Mr.  Weed  gave  me  information  in  regard  to  candidates 
for  office  in  the  State  of  New  York,  including  their  relations 
to  the  factions  that  existed — usually  Seward  and  anti-Seward 
— and  with  as  much  fairness  as  he  could  have  commanded  if 
he  had  had  no  relation  to  either  faction. 

As  I  had  time  remaining  at  the  end  of  my  call  upon  Mr. 
Weed,  and  as  I  had  in  mind  Mr.  Stewart's  message  at  the 
Cooper  Union  meeting,  I  drove  to  his  down-town  store, 
where  I  found  him.  He  received  me  with  cordiality,  but  in 
respect  to  his  health  he  seemed  to  be  already  a  doomed  man. 
He  was  anxious  chiefly  to  give  me  an  opportunity  to  com- 
prehend the  nature  and  magnitude  of  his  business.  As  I  was 
about  to  leave,  he  took  hold  of  my  coat  button  and  said : 
"  When  you  see  the  President,  you  give  my  love  to  him, 
and  say  to  him  that  I  am  for  him  and  that  I  always  have  been 
for  him."  Still  holding  me  by  the  button,  he  said :  "  Who 
buys  the  carpets  for  the  Treasury?  " 

I  said :  "  Mr.  Saville  is  the  chief  clerk,  and  he  buys  the 
carpets." 

Mr.  Stewart  said:  "  Tell  him  to  come  to  me;  I  will  sell 
him  carpets  as  cheap  as  anybody." 

When  I  repeated  Mr.  Stewart's  message  to  the  President 
he  made  no  reply,  and  he  gave  no  indication  that  he  was 
hearing  what  I  was  saying. 

In  regard  to  Judge  Hoar's  relations  to  President  Grant, 
the  public  has  been  invited  to  accept  several  errors,  the 
appointment  to  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justices 
Bradley  and  Strong,  by  whose  votes  the  first  decision  of  the 


2o8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

court  in  the  Legal  Tender  cases  was  overruled,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances which  led  to  the  retirement  of  Judge  Hoar  from 
the  Cabinet.  First  of  all  I  may  say  that  President  Grant  was 
attached  to  Judge  Hoar,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  his  attach- 
ment never  underwent  any  abatement.  Whatever  bond  there 
may  be  in  the  smoking  habit,  it  was  formed  without  delay  at 
the  beginning  of  their  acquaintance.  While  General  Grant 
was  not  a  teller  of  stories,  he  enjoyed  listening  to  good  ones, 
and  of  these  Judge  Hoar  had  a  large  stock  always  at 
command.  General  Grant  enjoyed  the  society  of  intellectual 
men,  and  Judge  Hoar  was  far  up  in  that  class.  General 
Grant  had  regrets  for  the  retirement  of  Judge  Hoar  from 
his  Cabinet,  and  for  the  circumstances  which  led  to  his  retire- 
ment. His  appointment  of  Judge  Hoar  upon  the  Joint  High 
Commission  and  the  nomination  of  Judge  Hoar  to  a  seat  upon 
the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  accepted  as  evidence 
of  General  Grant's  continuing  friendship,  and  of  his  dispo- 
sition to  recognize  it.  notwithstanding  the  break  in  official 
relations. 

Judge  Hoar's  professional  life  had  been  passed  in  Massa- 
chusetts, and  he  had  no  personal  acquaintance  with  the 
lawyers  of  the  circuit  from  which  Justices  Strong  and  Brad- 
ley were  appointed.  Strong  and  Bradley  were  at  the  head  of 
the  profession  in  the  States  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania, 
and  in  truth  there  was  no  debate  as  to  the  fitness  of  their 
appointment.  Judge  Hoar  was  not  responsible  for  their 
appointment,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  nominations 
would  have  been  made  even  against  his  advice,  which  as- 
suredly was  not  so  given.  Judge  Strong,  as  Chief  Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  had  sustained  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  Legal  Tender  Act,  and  it  was  understood 
that  Bradley  was  of  the  same  opinion.  As  the  President  and 
Cabinet  were  of  a  like  opinion,  it  may  be  said  that  there 
could  have  been  no  "  packing  "  of  the  Supreme  Court  except 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       209 

by  the  exclusion  of  the  two  mos.t  prominent  lawyers  in  the 
circuit  and  the  appointment  of  men  whose  opinions  upon  a 
vital  question  were  not  in  harmony  with  the  opinion  of  the 
person  making  the  appointment.  v^ 

As  to  myself,  I  had  never  accepted  the  original  decision  as\s 
sound  law  under  the  Constitution,  nor  as  a  wise  public  policy, 
if  there  had  been  no  Constitution.  By  the  decision  the  Gov- 
ernment was  shorn  of  a  part  of  its  financial  means  of  defence 
in  an  exigency.  When  the  Supreme  Court  had  reached  a 
conclusion,  Chief  Justice  Chase  called  upon  me  and  informed 
me  of  that  fact,  about  two  weeks  in  advance  of  the  delivery 
of  the  opinion.  He  gave  as  a  reason  his  apprehension  of 
serious  financial  difficulties  due  to  a  demand  for  gold  by  the 
creditor  class.  Not  sharing  In  that  apprehension,  I  said : 
"  The  business  men  are  all  debtors  as  well  as  creditors,  and 
they  cannot  engage  in  a  struggle  over  gold  payments,  and 
the  small  class  of  creditors  who  ai=e  not  also  debtors  will  not 
venture  upon  a  policy  in  which  they  must  suffer  ultimately." 
The  decision  did  not  cause  a  ripple  in  the  finances  of  the 
country. 

Pursuing  the  conversation,  I  asked  the  Chief  Justice  where 
he  found  authority  in  the  Constitution  for  the  issue  of  non- 
legal-tender  currency.  He  answered  in  the  power  to  borrow 
money  and  in  the  power  given  to  Congress  to  provide  for 
the  "  general  welfare  of  the  United  States."  I  then  said,  hav- 
ing in  mind  the  opinion  in  the  case  of  MacCulloch  and  Mary- 
land, in  which  the  court  held  that  where  a  power  was  given 
to  Congress,  its  exercise  was  a  matter  of  discretion  unless 
a  limitation  could  be  found  in  the  Constitution :  "  Where 
do  you  find  a  limitation  to  the  power  to  borrow  money  by 
any  means  that  to  Congress  may  appear  wise?  "  The  Chief 
Justice  was  unable  to  specify  a  limitation,  and  the  question 
remains  unanswered  to  this  day. 

When  the  case  of  Hepburn  and  Griswold  was  overruled  in 


210  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  Legal  Tender  cases,  the  Chief  Justice  was  very  much 
disturbed,  ^d  with  the  exhibition  of  considerable  feeling, 
he  said  :  ■  ^Why  did  you  consent  to  the  appointment  of  judges 
to  overrule  me?  "  I  assured  him  that  there  was  no  personal 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  President,  and  that  as  to  my  own 
unimportant  part  in  the  business,  he  had  known  from  the 
time  of  our  interview  in  regard  to  the  former  action  of  the 
court  that  I  entertained  the  opinion  that  the  decision  operated 
as  a  limitation  of  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress  and 
that  its  full  and  final  recognition  might  prove  injurious  .to  the 
country  whenever  all  its  resources  should  be  required.  At 
the  time  of  the  reversal,  the  Chief  Justice  did  not  conceal  his 
dissatisfaction  with  his  life  and  labors  on  the  bench,  and 
at  the  interview  last  mentioned  he  said  that  he  should  be 
glad  to  exchange  positions  with  me,  if  it  were  possible  to 
make  the  exchange. 

Various  reasons  have  been  assigned  for  the  step  which 
was  taken  by  President  Grant  in  asking  Judge  Hoar  to  re- 
tire from  the  Cabinet.  Some  have  assumed  that  the  Presi- 
dent was  no  longer  willing  to  tolerate  the  presence  of  two 
members  from  the  same  State.  That  consideration  had  been 
passed  upon  by  the  President  at  the  outset,  and  he  had 
overruled  it  or  set  it  aside.  In  my  interview  with  Mr. 
Washburne  the  Sunday  before  my  nomination,  I  had  said 
to  him  that  Judge  Hoar  and  I  were  not  only  from  the 
same  State,  but  that  we  were  residents  of  the  same  county, 
and  within  twenty  miles  of  each  other.  Moreover,  any  public 
dissatisfaction  which  had  existed  at  the  beginning  had  dis- 
appeared. In  the  meantime  the  President  had  become  at- 
tached to  Judge  Hoar.  Nor  is  there  any  justifying  founda- 
tion for  the  conjecture  that  a  vacancy  was  created  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  to  another  person,  or 
to  another  section  of  the  country.  General  Grant's  attach- 
ment to  his  friends  was  near  to  a  weakness,  and  the  sugges- 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       211 

tion  that  he  sacrificed  Judge  Hoar  to  the  low  purpose  of 
giving  a  place  to  some  other  person  is  far  away  from  any 
true  view  of  his  character. 

Judge  Hoar  had  had  no  administrative  experience  on  the 
political  side  of  the  government,  and  he  underestimated  the 
claims,  and  he  undervalued  the  rights,  of  members  of  Con- 
gress. As  individuals  the  members  of  Congress  are  of  the 
Government,  and  in  a  final  test  the  two  Houses  may  become 
the  Government.  More  than  elsewhere  the  seat  of  power  is 
in  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  and  Senators  are  careful  to 
exact  a  recognition  of  their  rights.  They  claim,  what  from 
the  beginning  they  have  enjoyed,  the  right  to  be  heard  by 
the  President  and  the  heads  of  department  in  regard  to  ap- 
pointments in  their  respective  States.  They  do  not  claim  to 
speak  authoritatively,  but  as  members  of  the  Government 
having  a  right  to  advise,  and  under  a  certain  responsibility 
to  the  people  for  what  may  be  done. 

It  was  claimed  by  Senators  that  the  Attorney-General 
seemed  not  to  admit  their  right  to  speak  in  regard  to  appoint- 
ments, and  that  appointments  were  made  of  which  they  had  no 
knowledge,  and  of  which  neither  they  nor  their  constitutents 
could  approve.  These  differences  reached  a  crisis  when  Sena- 
tors (I  use  the  word  in  the  plural)  notified  the  President 
that  they  should  not  visit  the  Department  of  Justice  while 
Judge  Hoar  was  Attorney-General.  Thus  was  a  disagreeable 
alternative  presented  to  the  President,  and  a  first  impression 
would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  he  ought  to  have  sustained 
the  Attorney-General.  Assuming  that  the  complaints  were 
well  founded,  it  followed  that  the  Attorney-General  was  deny- 
ing to  Senators  the  consideration  which  the  President  himself 
was  recognizing  daily.  / 

President  Grant  looked  upon  the  members  of  his  Cabinet 
as  his  family  for  the  management  of  civil  affairs,  as  he 
had  looked  upon  his  staff  as  his  military  family  for  the  con- 


212  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

duct  of  the  army,  and  he  regarded  a  recommendation  for  a 
Cabinet  appointment  as  an  interference.  His  first  Cabinet 
was  organized  upon  that  theory  somewhat  modified  by  a 
reference  to  locality.  Mr.  Bovie  who  became  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  was  a  most  excellent  man,  but  he  had  had  no  prep- 
aration either  by  training  or  experience  for  the  duties  of  a 
department.  Of  this  he  was  quite  conscious,  and  he  never 
attempted  to  conceal  the  fact.     He  often  said : 

"  The  department  is  managed  by  Admiral  Porter,  I  am 
only  a  figure-head." 

In  a  few  months  he  resigned.  His  associates  were  much 
attached  to  him.  He  was  a  benevolent,  genial,  well  informed 
man.  His  successor,  Mr.  Robeson,  was  a  man  of  singular 
ability,  lacking  only  the  habit  of  careful,  continuous  industry. 
This  failing  contributed  to  his  misfortunes  in  administration, 
and  consequently  he  was  the  subject  gf  many  attacks  in  the 
newspapers  and  in  Congress.  After  his  retirement  he  be- 
came a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  it 
was  a  noticeable  fact,  that  from  that  day  the  attacks  in 
Congress  ceased.  As  a  debater  he  was  well  equipped,  and 
in  reference  to  his  administration  of  the  Navy  Department, 
he  was  always  prepared  with  an  answer  or  an  explanation  in 
every  exigency. 

The  appointment  of  Governor  Fish  to  the  Department 
of  State,  gave  rise  to  considerable  adverse  comment.  The 
chief  grounds  of  complaint  were  that  he  was  no  longer  young 
and  that  recently  he  had  not  been  active  in  political  contests. 
He  had  been  a  Whig  when  there  was  a  Whig  Party,  and  he 
became  a  Republican  when  the  Republican  Party  was  formed. 
As  a  Whig  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  but  he 
had  not  held  office  as  a  Republican,  nor  was  he  known 
generally  as  a  speaker  or  wTiter  in  support  of  the  policies  or 
principles  of  the  party.    His  age,  then  about  sixty,  was  urged 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       213 

as  a  reason  against  his  appointment.  His  selection  as  Sec- 
retary was  extremely  fortunate  for  General  Grant  and  his 
administration.  Governor  Fish  was  painstaking  in  his  ofHce, 
exacting  in  his  demands  upon  subordinates,  without  being 
harsh  or  unjust,  diligent  in  his  duties,  and  fully  informed  as 
to  the  traditions  and  usages  of  the  department.  Beyond 
these  administrative  qualities  he  had  the  capacity  to  place 
every  question  of  a  diplomatic  character  upon  a  foundation 
at  once  reasonable  and  legal.  If  the  failure  of  Mr.  Stewart 
led  to  the  appointment  of  Governor  Fish  the  change  was 
fortunate  for  General  Grant  and  the  country.  After  the 
failure  of  Mr.  Stewart,  Mr.  Washburne  spoke  of  his  appoint- 
ment to  the  State  Department,  as  only  temporary,  but  for 
a  few  days  he  acted  as  though  he  expected  to  remain  per- 
manently. If  his  transfer  to  France  was  an  afterthought,  he 
and  the  President  very  carefully  concealed  the  fact.  It  is  not 
probable  that  the  President  at  the  outset  designed  to  take 
the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
from  New  York  City.  Hence  I  infer  that  the  failure  of  Mr. 
Stewart  worked  a  change  in  the  headship  of  the  State  De- 
partment, and  hence  I  am  of  opinion  that  the  failure  of  Mr. 
Stewart  was  of  great  advantage  to  the  administration  and  to 
the  country,  and  that  without  considering  whether  there  was 
a  gain  or  loss  in  the  Treasury  Department.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Governor  Fish  was  a  much  wiser  man  than  Mr. 
Washburne  for  the  management  of  foreign  affairs  and  there 
can  be  as  little  doubt  that  Mr.  Washburne  could  not  have 
been  excelled  as  Minister  at  Paris  in  the  troublous  period  of 
the  years  1870  and  1871. 

Mr.  Fish  had  no  ambitions  beyond  the  proper  and  success- 
ful administration  of  his  own  department.  He  did  not  aspire 
to  the  Presidency,  and  he  remained  in  the  State  Department 
during  General  Grant's  second  term,  at  the  special  request 
of  the  President. 


214  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  Sumner's  removal  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations  was  due  to  the  fact  that  a  time 
came  when  he  did  not  recognize  the  President,  and  when 
he  declined  to  have  any  intercourse  with  the  Secretary  of 
State  outside  of  official  business.  Such  a  condition  of  affairs 
is  always  a  hindrance  in  the  way  of  good  government,  and 
it  may  become  an  obstacle  to  success.  Good  government 
can  be  secured  only  through  conferences  with  those  who  are 
responsible,  by  conciliation,  and  not  infrequently  by  conces- 
sions to  the  holders  of  adverse  opinions.  The  time  came 
when  such  a  condition  was  no  longer  possible  between  Mr. 
Sumner  and  the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  President  and  his  Cabinet  were  in  accord  in  regard 
to  the  controversy  with  Great  Britain  as  to  the  Alabama 
Claims.  Mr.  Sumner  advocated  a  more  exacting  policy.  Mr. 
Motley  appeared  to  be  following  Mr.  Sumner's  lead,  and  the 
opposition  to  Mr.  Sumner  extended  to  Mr.  Motley.  It  had 
happened  that  the  President  had  taken  on  a  prejudice  to  Mr. 
Motley  at  their  first  interview.  This  I  learned  when  I  said 
something  to  the  President  in  the  line  of  conciliation.  The 
President  said :  "  Such  was  my  impression  of  Motley  when  I 
saw  him  that  I  should  have  withheld  his  appointment  if  I  had 
not  made  a  promise  to  Sumner."  My  acquaintance  with  Mr. 
Motley  began  in  the  year  1849,  when  we  were  members  of 
the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  and  I  had  a 
high  regard  for  him,  although  it  had  been  charged  that  I 
had  had  some  part  in  driving  him  from  politics  into 
literature. 

When  we  consider  the  natures  and  the  training  of  the  two 
men,  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  agreeable  co-operation  in  public 
affairs  by  Mr.  Sumner  and  General  Grant.  Mr.  Sumner 
never  believed  in  General  Grant's  fitness  for  the  office  of 
President,  and  General  Grant  did  not  recognize  in  Mr.  Sum- 
ner a  wise  and  safe  leader  in  the  business  of  government. 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       215 

General  Grant's  notion  of  Mr.  Sumner,  on  one  side  of  his 
character,  may  be  inferred  from  his  answer  when,  being 
asked  if  he  had  heard  Mr.  Sumner  converse,  he  said :  "  No, 
but  I  have  heard  him  lecture." 

As  I  am  to  speak  of  Mr.  Sumner  in  our  personal  relations, 
which  for  thirteen  years  before  his  death  were  intimate,  I 
shall  use  some  words  of  preface.  Never  on  more  than  two 
occasions  did  we  have  differences  that  caused  any  feeling  on 
either  side.  Mr.  Sumner  was  chairman  in  the  Senate  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  Mr.  Eliot  was 
chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  House.  A  report  was 
made  in  each  House,  and  each  bill  contained  not  less  than 
twenty  sections.  Each  House  passed  its  own  bill.  A  com- 
mittee of  conference  was  appointed.  Its  report  was  rejected. 
I  was  appointed  a  member  of  the  second  committee. 

I  examined  the  bills,  and  I  marked  out  every  section  that 
was  not  essential  to  the  working  of  the  measure.  Four  sec- 
tions remained.  I  then  added  a  section  which  provided  for 
the  lease  and  ultimate  sale  of  the  confiscated  lands  to  the  f  reed- 
men  and  refugees.  President  Johnson's  restoration  of  those 
lands  made  that  section  non-operative.  The  committee,  upon 
the  motion  of  General  Schenck,  transferred  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Bureau  from  the  Treasury  to  the  War  Department. 
The  bill  was  accepted  by  the  committee,  and  passed  by  the 
two   Houses. 

When  within  a  few  days  I  was  in  the  Senate  Chamber, 
Mr.  Sumner  came  to  me,  and  said  in  substance :  "  The 
Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  as  it  passed  is  of  no  value.  I  have 
spent  six  months  upon  the  bill,  and  my  work  has  gone  for 
nothing.  You  and  General  Schenck  cannot  pretend  to 
know  as  much  as  I  know  about  the  measure." 

With  some  feeling,  which  was  not  justifiable,  I  said :  "  I 
have  not  spent  six  hours  upon  the  measure,  but  after  what  you 
have  said  I  will  say  that  the  fifth  section  is  of  more  value 


2i6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

than  all  the  sections  which  you  have  written."  I  did  not 
wait  for  a  reply.  The  subject  was  not  again  mentioned;  our 
friendly  relations  were  not  disturbed,  and  it  is  to  Mr.  Sum- 
ner's credit  on  the  score  of  toleration  that  he  passed  over  my 
rough  remarks,  even  though  he  had  given  some  reason  for  a 
retort. 

My  next  difference  with  Mr.  Sumner  was  a  more  serious 
difference,  but  it  passed  without  any  break  in  our  relations. 
He  had  not  acquired  the  church-going  habit,  or  he  had  re- 
nounced it,  and  my  church-going  was  spasmodic  rather  than 
systematic.  Thus  it  became  possible  and  agreeable  for  me 
to  spend  some  small  portion  of  each  Sunday  in  his  rooms. 
The  controversy  over  Mr.  Motley  and  his  removal  from  the 
post  of  minister  to  Great  Britain  excited  Mr.  Sumner  to  a 
point  far  beyond  any  excitement  to  which  he  yielded,  arising 
from  his  own  troubles  or  from  the  misfortunes  of  the  country. 
To  him  it  was  the  topic  of  conversation  at  all  times  and  in 
all  places.  That  habit  I  accepted  at  his  house  with  as  much 
complacency  as  I  could  command.  Indeed,  I  was  not  much 
disturbed  by  what  he  said  to  me  in  private,  and  certainly 
not  by  what  he  said  in  his  own  house,  where  I  went  from 
choice,  and  without  any  obligation  to  remain  resting  upon 
me.  In  all  his  conversation  he  made  General  Grant  responsi- 
ble for  the  removal  of  Motley,  accompanied,  usually,  with 
language  of  censure  and  condemnation.  On  two  occasions 
that  were  in  a  measure  public,  one  of  which  was  at  a  dinner 
given  to  me  by  Mr.  Franklin  Haven,  a  personal  friend  of 
twenty  years'  standing,  when  he  insisted  upon  holding  the  Mot- 
ley incident  as  the  topic  of  conversation.  On  one  of  these  oc- 
casions, and  in  excitement,  he  turned  to  me  and  said :  "  Bout- 
well,  you  ought  to  have  resigned  when  Motley  was  removed." 

I  said  only  in  reply :  ''  I  am  the  custodian  of  my  own 
duty." 

This  was  the  only  personal  remark  that  I  ever  made  to 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       217 

Mr,  Sumner  in  connection  with  the  removal  of  Motley.  The 
removal  was  the  only  reasonable  solution  of  the  difficulty  in 
which  Motley  was  involved;  but  I  sympathized  with  him 
in  the  disaster  which  had  overtaken  him,  and  I  was  not  dis- 
posed to  discuss  the  subject.  The  incident  at  the  dinner  led 
me  to  make  a  resolution.  I  called  upon  Mr.  Sumner,  and 
without  accepting  a  seat,  I  said :  "  Senator,  if  you  ever 
mention  General  Grant's  name  in  my  presence,  I  will  never 
again  cross  your  threshold." 

Without  the  delay  of  a  half  minute  he  said :     "  Agreed." 

There  the  matter  ended,  and  the  promise  was  kept.  In 
1872,  and  not  many  days  before  he  left  for  Europe,  he  said: 
"  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  about  General  Grant." 

I  said :    "  You  know  that  that  is  a  forbidden  topic." 

"  Yes,  but  I  am  not  going  to  speak  controversially." 

I  said :     "  Say  on." 

He  said :    *'  What  do  you  think  of  Grant's  election  ?  " 

I  said:     "  I  think  he  will  be  elected." 

He  held  up  his  hands,  and  in  a  tone  of  grief  said":  "  You 
and  Wilson  are  the  only  ones  who  tell  me  that  he  has  any 
chance." 

Upon  his  return  from  Europe  it  was  apparent  that  his 
feelings  in  regard  to  the  Republican  Party,  and  especially 
in  regard  to  General  Grant,  had  undergone  a  great  change. 
Our  conversations  concerning  General  Grant  were  resumed 
free  from  all  restrictions,  and  without  any  disturbance  of  feel- 
ing on  my  part.  Not  many  months  before  his  death  Mr. 
Sumner  made  a  speech  in  executive  session  that  was  con- 
ciliatory and  just  in  a  marked  degree.  I  urged  him  to  repeat 
it  in  public  session.  He  seemed  to  regard  the  suggestion  with 
favor,  but  the  speech  was  not  made. 

For  many  years  Mr.  Sumner  had  been  borne  down  under 
the  resolutions  of  censure  passed  by  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts in  disapproval  of  his  position  in  regard  to  the  return 


2i8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  Confederate  flags.  That  resolution  was  rescinded  at  the 
winter  session  of  1874.  The  act  brought  to  Mr.  Sumner  the 
highest  degree  of  satisfaction  that  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  realize.  Above  all  things  else  of  a  public  nature,  he  cher- 
ished the  good  name  of  the  commonwealth,  and  for  him- 
self there  was  nothing  more  precious  than  her  approval. 
The  blow  was  unexpected,  its  weight  was  great,  and  its 
weight  was  never  lessened  until  it  was  wholly  removed. 
The  rescinding  resolutions  came  to  me  the  Saturday  next 
preceding  the  Wednesday  when  Mr.  Sumner  died.  I  was 
then  in  ill  health,  so  ill  that  my  attendance  at  the  Senate 
did  not  exceed  one  half  of  each  day's  session  through  many 
weeks.  Mr.  Sumner  called  upon  me  to  inquire,  and  anxious 
to  know,  whether  I  could  attend  the  session  of  Monday 
and  present  the  resolutions.  I  gave  him  the  best  assurance 
that  my  condition  permitted.  When  the  resolutions  had 
been  presented,  and  when  I  was  leaving  the  chamber,  Mr. 
Sumner  came  to  me,  and,  putting  his  arm  over  my  shoulder, 
he  walked  with  me  into  the  lobby,  where,  after  many  thanks 
by  him,  and  with  good  wishes  for  my  health,  we  parted, 
without  a  thought  by  me  that  he  had  not  before  him  many 
years  of  rugged  life.  For  several  years  previous  to  1874,  Mr. 
Sumner  had  been  accustomed  to  speak  of  himself  as  an  old 
man,  and  on  more  than  one  occasion  he  spoke  of  life  as  a 
burden.    To  these  utterances  I  gave  but  little  heed. 

The  chief  assurance  for  any  considerable  well-doing  in 
the  world  is  to  be  found  in  good  purposes  and  in  fixedness 
of  purpose  when  a  purpose  has  been  formed.  These  char- 
acteristics were  Mr.  Sumner's  possessions,  but  in  him  they 
were  subject  to  very  important  limitations  as  powers  in  prac- 
tical affairs.  He  did  not  exhibit  respect  or  deference  for  the 
opinions  of  others  even  when  the  parties  were  upon  a  plane 
of  equality,  as  is  the  usual  situation  in  legislative  bodies. 
He  could  not  concede  small  points  for  the  sake  of  a  great 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION       219 

result.  Hence  it  was  that  measures  in  which  he  had  an  in- 
terest took  on  a  form  at  the  end  that  was  not  agreeable  to  him. 
Hence  it  is  that  he  has  left  only  one  piece  of  legislation  that 
is  distinctly  the  work  of  his  hand.  When  the  bill  was  under 
consideration  which  denied  to  colored  persons  the  privilege  of 
naturalization  in  the  United  States,  he  secured  an  amend- 
ment by  which  the  exclusion  was  limited  to  the  Mongolian 
race.  His  declaration  as  to  the  status  of  the  States  that  had 
been  in  rebellion  was  not  far  away  from  the  policy  that  was 
adopted  finally,  but  he  did  not  accept  as  wise  and  necessary 
measures  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  which  were 
designed  to  make  that  policy  permanent.  Indeed,  it  was  his 
opinion,  at  one  period  of  the  controversy  over  the  question 
of  negro  suffrage,  that  a  legislative  declaration  would  be 
sufficient.  The  field  of  his  success  is  to  be  found  in  the 
argumentative  power  that  he  possessed  and  in  its  use  for 
the  overthrow  of  slavery.  Of  the  anti-slavery  advocates  who 
entered  the  Senate  previous  to  the  opening  of  the  war, 
he  was  the  best  equipped  in  learning,  and  his  influence  in  the 
country  was  not  surpassed  by  the  influence  of  any  one  of 
his  associates.  In  his  knowledge  of  diplomacy,  he  had  the 
first  rank  in  the  Senate  for  the  larger  part  of  his  career.  His 
influence  in  the  Senate  was  measured,  however,  by  his  in- 
fluence in  the  country.  His  speeches,  especially  in  the  period 
of  national  controversy,  were  addressed  to  the  country.  He 
relied  upon  authorities  and  precedents.  His  powers  as  a  de- 
bater were  limited,  and  it  followed  inevitably  that  in  purely 
parliamentary  contests  he  was  not  a  match  for  such  masters 
as  Fessenden  and  Conkling,  who  in  learning  were  his 
inferiors. 

My  means  for  information  are  so  limited  that  I  do  not  ex- 
press an  opinion  upon  the  question  whether  Mr.  Sumner's 
ambitions  in  public  life  were  or  were  not  gratified.  On  one 
or  two  occasions  he  let  fall  remarks  which  indicated  a  will- 


220  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ingness  to  be  transferred  to  the  Department  of  State.  Major 
Ben.  Perley  Poore  had  received  the  impression  that  there 
was  a  time  when  Mr.  Sumner  looked  to  the  Presidency  as  a 
possibiHty.  At  an  accidental  meeting  with  Major  Poore,  he 
said  to  me :  "I  have  dined  with  Sumner,  and  he  gave  me 
an  account  of  the  conversation  he  had  with  you  this  morning, 
in  which  you  consoled  him  for  not  gaining  the  Presidency." 

I  recalled  the  conversation.  It  was  a  Sunday-morning 
talk,  and  there  was  no  special  purpose  on  my  part,  however 
my  remarks  may  have  been  received  by  Mr.  Sumner.  He 
spoke  of  the  opportunity  furnished  to  Mr.  Jefferson  for 
the  exposition  of  his  views  in  his  first  inaugural  address.  I 
then  proceeded  to  say  that,  omitting  the  incumbent  of  the 
ofifice,  of  whom  nothing  could  then  be  said,  not  more  than 
three  or  four  men  had  gained  in  standing  by  their  elevation 
to  the  Presidency,  beyond  the  fact  that  their  names  were 
upon  the  roll.  The  exceptions  were,  first  of  all,  Lincoln,  who 
had  gained  most.  Then  Jackson,  who  had  gained  some- 
thing— indeed,  a  good  deal  by  his  defence  of  the  Union  when 
compared  with  what  he  might  have  lost  by  neglect  of  duty 
in  the  days  of  nullification.  Washington  had  gained  much 
by  demonstrating  his  capacity  for  civil  affairs,  by  the  legacy 
of  his  farewell  address,  and  by  the  shaping  of  the  new  govern- 
ment under  the  Constitution  in  a  manner  calculated  to 
strengthen  the  quality  of  perpetuity.  At  the  end,  I  claimed 
that  the  other  occupants  of  the  Presidential  office  had  not 
gained  appreciably  by  their  promotion. 

In  two  important  particulars,  Samuel  Adams  and  Charles 
Sumner  are  parallel  characters  in  American  history.  Mr. 
Adams  was  a  leader  in  the  contest  that  the  colonies  carried 
on  against  Great  Britain.  Our  legal  standing  in  the  con- 
troversy with  the  mother  country  has  never  elsewhere  been 
presented  as  forcibly  and  logically  as  it  was  stated  by  Mr. 
Adams  in  his  letters  to  the  royal  governors  in  the  name  of 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION      221 

the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives,  between  the 
years  1764  and  1775.  When  the  contest  of  words  and  of 
arms  was  over  he  was  not  only  not  an  aid  in  the  organization 
of  the  new  Government,  but  he  was  an  obstacle  to  its  success. 
He  accepted  the  Constitution  with  hesitation  and  under 
constraint.  After  the  overthrow  of  slavery  and  the  ratification 
of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  Mr.  Sum- 
ner gave  no  wise  aid  to  the  work  of  reconstructing  the  gov- 
ernment upon  the  basis  of  the  new  conditions  that  had  been 
created  by  the  war  and  by  the  abolition  of  slavery.  As  every 
guarantee  for  freedom  contains  some  element  of  enslave- 
ment over  or  against  some  who  are  not  within  the  guarantee, 
men  sometimes  hesitate  as  to  the  wisdom  of  accepting  guar- 
antees of  rights  in  one  direction  which  work  a  limitation  of 
rights  or  privileges  in  other  directions.  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  while  it  gave  power  to  the  body  of  States 
and  guaranteed  security  to  each  yet  deprived  the  individual 
States  of  many  of  the  privileges  and  powers  that  they  had 
enjoyed  as  colonies.  Every  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
from  the  first  to  the  last,  has  limited  the  application  of  the 
doctrine  of  home  rule  in  the  government. 

Upon  the  election  of  Mr.  Wilson  to  the  office  of  Vice- 
President,  I  was  chosen  by  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts 
as  his  successor  in  the  Senate.  I  left  the  Treasury  and  Gen- 
eral Grant's  Cabinet  with  reluctance,  but  my  experience  in 
both  branches  of  the  government  had  led  me  to  prefer  the 
legislative  branch,  where  there  is  at  least  more  freedom  of 
action  than  can  be  had  in  an  executive  department.  This 
opinion  is  in  no  sense  due  to  the  nature  of  my  relations  with 
General  Grant.  His  military  habits  led  him  to  put  responsi- 
bility upon  subordinates  and  this  habit  he  carried  into  civil 
affairs. 

Moreover,  in  my  own  case,  he  recognized  that  fact  that  I 
had  accepted  the  place  upon  his  urgent  request,  command 


222  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

indeed,  and  not  to  gratify  any  ambition  of  my  own.  And 
further,  I  think  I  may  assume,  that  his  confidence  was  such 
that  he  was  content  to  leave  the  department  in  my  hands. 
During  my  time  he  put  only  one  person — General  Pleasanton 
— into  the  department,  and  he  never  commanded  or  required 
the  removal  of  any  one.  On  a  few  occasions  he  named  per- 
sons whom  he  said  he  would  be  glad  to  have  employed  if 
places  could  be  found.  They  were  always  soldiers,  or  widows 
or  children  of  soldiers,  and  he  never  forgot  his  suggestions, 
nor  allowed  the  passage  of  time  to  diminish  his  interest  in 
such  cases. 

The  important  places  in  New  York,  Chicago,  St.  Louis, 
Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  and  Philadelphia  were  filled  by  him, 
usually  upon  consultation,  but  upon  his  judgment.  He  gave 
very  little  attention  to  others  beyond  signing  the  commis- 
sions. I  often  called  his  attention  to  the  more  important 
ones,  but  it  was  his  practice  to  send  applicants  and  their 
friends  to  me  with  the  remark  that  the  business  was  in  my 
hands. 

By  this  course  the  President  avoided  much  labor,  and  es- 
caped some  responsibility.  The  disappointed  ones  charged 
their  misfortunes  to  the  Secretary,  and  the  President  was 
able  to  say  that  he  knew  nothing  of  the  case,  etc.,  etc. 

I  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  President  did  not  exhibit 
equal  confidence  in  my  successors,  especially  in  Mr.  Bristow. 
The  President  received  the  impression  very  early,  that  Bris- 
tow was  engaged  in  a  scheme  to  secure  the  nomination  by  an 
alliance  with  the  enemies  of  General  Grant.  In  my  time 
three  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  attempted  in  turn  to  secure 
a  nomination  for  the  Presidency  through  the  influence  and 
patronage  of  that  department.  All  were  failures,  and  fail- 
ures well  deserved. 

Such  a  policy  breeds  corruption  inevitably.  Venal  men 
aspiring  to  place,  avow  themselves  the  friends  of  the  Secre- 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION      223 

tary,  and  if  through  such  avowals  they  secure  appointments, 
the  offices  will  be  used  for  improper  purposes. 

My  successor,  Judge  Richardson,  had  been  Assistant  Sec- 
retary for  three  years  and  more,  and  no  one  could  have  sur- 
passed him  in  industry,  fidelity  and  knowledge  of  the  busi- 
ness. I  recommended  his  appointment.  The  President  hesi- 
tated, but  he  finally  nominated  him  to  the  Senate,  and  the 
nomination  was  confirmed. 

correspondence  with  general  grant  upon  my  resigna- 
tion of  the  office  of  secretary  of  the  treasury 

Washington^ 
March  17,  1873. 
Sir: 

Having  been  elected  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  by 
the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  I  tender  my  resignation  of 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

In  severing  my  official  relations  with  you  it  is  a  great 
satisfaction  to  me  that  on  all  occasions  you  have  given  me  full 
confidence  and  support  in  the  discharge  of  my  public  duties. 
In  these  four  years  my  earlier  acquaintance  with  you  has 
ripened  into  earnest  personal  friendship,  which,  I  am  con- 
fident, will  remain  unbroken.    I  am 

Yours  very  truly, 

Geo.  S.  Boutwell. 
To  the  President. 

Executive  Mansion, 
Washington,  March  17,  1873. 

Hon.  Geo.  S.  Boutwell, 

Dear  Sir: — 

In  accepting  your  resignation  of  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  an  office  which  you  have  filled  for  four  years 
with  such  satisfaction  to  the  country,  allow  me  to  express 


224  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  regret  I  feel  at  severing  official  relations  which  have  been 
at  all  times  so  agreeable  to  me,  and, — as  I  am  assured  by  your 
letter  of  resignation, — to  you  also.  Your  administration  of 
the  important  trust  confided  to  you  four  years  since,  has  been 
so  admirably  conducted  as  to  give  the  greatest  satisfaction  to 
me  because  as  I  read  public  judgment  and  opinion  it  has  been 
satisfactory  to  the  country.  The  policy  pursued  in  the  office 
of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  your  successor  I  hope  may  be 
as  successful  as  yours  has  been,  and  that  no  departure  from  it 
will  be  made  except  such  as  experience  and  change  of  circum- 
stances may  make  necessary. 

Among  your  new  official  associates  I  trust  you  will  find  the 
same  warm  friends  and  co-workers  that  you  leave  in  the 
Executive  branch  of  the  government. 

You  take  with  you  my  most  sincere  well  wishes  for  your 
success  as  a  legislator  and  as  a  citizen,  and  the  assurance  of  my 
desire  to  continue  the  warm  personal  relations  that  have  ex- 
isted between  us  during  the  whole  of  our  official  connection. 

Very  truly  yours, 

U.  S.  Grant. 


XXXVIII 

GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  STATESMAN* 

GENERAL  GRANT'S  father  was  a  Whig,  and  an  ad- 
mirer and  supporter  of  Mr.  Clay.  The  public  policy 
of  Mr.  Clay  embraced  three  great  measures :  First, 
a  national  bank,  or  a  fiscal  agency  as  an  aid  to  the  Treasury 
in  the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenues ;  sec- 
ondly, a  system  of  internal  improvements  to  be  created  at  the 
public  expense  and  controlled  by  the  National  Government; 
and,  thirdly,  a  tariff  system  which  should  protect  the  Ameri- 
can laborer  against  the  active  competition  of  the  laborers  of 
other  countries  who  were  compelled  to  work  for  smaller 
compensation. 

From  the  year  1834  to  the  year  1846  the  country  was  en- 
gaged in  an  active  controversy  over  the  policy  of  the  Whig 
Party,  of  which  Mr.  Clay  was  then  the  recognized  head.  In- 
deed, the  controversy  began  as  early  as  the  year  1824,  and  it 
contributed,  more  than  all  other  causes,  to  the  new  organiza- 
tion of  parties  under  the  leadership,  respectively,  of  Mr.  Clay 
and  General  Jackson. 

General  Grant  was  educated  under  these  influences,  and  in 
the  belief  that  the  policy  of  the  Whig  Party  would  best  pro- 
mote the  prosperity  of  the  country.  Those  early  impressions 
ripened  into  opinions,  which  he  held  and  on  which  he  acted 
during  his  public  life.  It  happened  by  the  force  of  circum- 
stances that  the  Republican  Party  was  compelled  to  adopt  the 

*  This  article  was  printed  in  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  for  the  year  1885. 
Copyright,  1886,  by  D.  Appleton  &  Co. 

325 


226  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

policy  of  Mr.  Clay — not  in  measures,  but  in  the  ideas  on  which 
his  policy  was  based.  It  is  not  now  necessary  to  inquire 
whether  the  weight  of  argument  was  with  Mr.  Clay  or  with 
his  opponents.  The  war  made  inevitable  the  adoption  of  a 
policy  which  Mr.  Clay  had  advocated  as  expedient  and  wise. 

The  Pacific  Railways  were  built  by  the  aid  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  under  the  pressure  of  a  general  public  opinion  that 
the  East  must  be  brought  into  a  more  intimate  connection  with 
our  possessions  on  the  Pacific  Ocean,  for  mutual  support  and 
for  the  common  defence. 

The  national  banking  system  was  established  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  the  aid  of  the  banks  as  purchasers  and  nego- 
tiators of  the  bonds  of  the  Government,  at  a  time  when  the 
public  credit  was  so  impaired  that  it  seemed  impossible  to 
command  the  funds  necessary  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war. 

The  same  exigency  compelled  Congress  to  enact,  and  the 
country  to  accept,  a  tariff  system  more  protective  in  its  pro- 
visions than  any  scheme  ever  suggested  by  Mr.  Clay.  The 
necessities  of  the  times  compelled  free-traders,  even,  to  accept 
the  revenue  system  with  its  protective  features;  but  General 
Grant  accepted  it  as  a  system  in  harmony  alike  with  his  early 
impressions  and  with  his  matured  opinions. 

It  has  happened,  by  the  force  of  events,  that  the  policy  of 
the  old  Whig  Party  has  been  revived  in  the  national  banking 
system,  while  the  Independent  Treasury,  the  leading  measure 
of  the  old  Democratic  Party,  has  been  preserved  in  all  its 
features  as  the  guide  of  the  Treasury  Department  in  its  finan- 
cial operations. 

When  General  Grant  became  President,  these  three  meas- 
ures had  been  incorporated  into  the  policy  of  the  Republican 
Party.  Their  full  acceptance  by  him  did  not  require  any 
change  of  opinion  on  his  part.  It  was  true  that  he  had  voted 
for  Mr.  Buchanan  in  1856;  but  his  vote  was  given  in  obedi- 
ence to  an  impression  that  he  had  received  touching  the  quali- 


GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  STATESMAN         227 

fications  of  General  Fremont.  The  fact  that  he  had  voted 
for  Mr.  Buchanan  excited  suspicions  in  the  minds  of  some 
Republicans,  and  it  engendered  hopes  in  the  bosoms  of  some 
Democrats  that  he  might  act  in  harmony  with  the  Democratic 
Party.    The  suspicions  and  the  hopes  were  alike  groundless. 

As  early  as  the  month  of  August,  1863,  in  a  letter  to  Mr. 
E.  B.  Washburne,  he  said :  "  It  became  patent  to  my  mind 
early  in  the  rebellion  that  the  North  and  South  could  never 
live  at  peace  with  each  other  except  as  one  nation,  and  that 
without  slavery.  As  anxious  as  I  am  to  see  peace  established, 
I  would  not,  therefore,  be  willing  to  see  any  settlement  until 
this  question  is  forever  settled." 

Thus  was  General  Grant,  at  an  early  moment,  and  upon  his 
own  judgment,  brought  into  full  accord  with  the  Republican 
Party  upon  the  two  debatable  and  most  earnestly  debated 
questions  during  Mr.  Lincoln's  administration — the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  war  and  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

And  thus  is  it  apparent  that  in  1868  he  was  in  a  condition, 
as  to  all  matters  of  opinion,  to  accept  a  nomination  at  the 
hands  of  the  Republican  Party;  and  it  is  equally  apparent 
that  he  was  separated  from  the  Democratic  Party  by  a  chasm 
wide,  deep,  and  impassable.  It  is,  however,  true  that  General 
Grant's  feelings  were  not  intense,  and  in  the  expression  of 
his  opinions  his  tone  was  mild  and  his  manner  gentle.  It 
often  happened,  also,  that  he  did  not  undertake  to  controvert 
opinions  and  expressions  with  which  he  had  no  sympathy. 
This  peculiarity  may  at  times  have  led  to  a  misunderstanding, 
or  to  a  misinterpretation  of  his  views.  Upon  this  basis  of 
his  early  impressions,  and  matured  opinions  his  administra- 
tive policy  was  constructed. 

When  he  became  President,  there  was  a  body  of  American 
citizens,  not  inconsiderable  in  numbers,  who  doubted  the  abil- 
ity of  the  Government  to  pay  the  war  debt;  there  were  others 
who  advocated  payment  in  greenbacks,  or  the  substitution  of 


228  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

a  note  not  bearing  interest  for  a  bond  that  bore  interest;  and 
there  were  yet  others  who  denied  the  vaHdity  of  the  existing 
obligations.  All  these  classes,  whether  they  were  dishonest 
or  only  misled,  were  alike  rebuked  in  his  inaugural  address. 
These  were  his  words :  "  A  great  debt  has  been  contracted 
in  securing  to  us  and  to  our  posterity  the  Union.  The  pay- 
ment of  this  debt,  principal  and  interest,  as  well  as  the  return 
to  a  specie  basis,  as  soon  as  it  can  be  accomplished  without 
material  detriment  to  the  debtor  class,  or  to  the  country  at 
large,  must  be  provided  for.  .  .  .  To  protect  the  na- 
tional honor,  every  dollar  of  Government  indebtedness  should 
be  paid  in  gold,  unless  otherwise  expressly  stipulated  in  the 
contract. 

"  Let  it  be  understood  that  no  repudiator  of  one  farthing  of 
our  public  debt  will  be  trusted  in  public  place,  and  it  will  go 
far  toward  strengthening  a  credit  which  ought  to  be  the  best 
in  the  world,  and  will  ultimately  enable  us  to  replace  the 
debt  with  bonds  bearing  less  interest  than  we  now  pay." 

In  the  same  address  he  asserted  the  ability  of  the  country 
to  pay  the  debt  within  the  period  of  twenty-five  years,  and  he 
also  declared  his  purpose  to  secure  a  faithful  collection  of 
'  the  public  revenues.  At  the  close  of  his  administration  of 
eight  years  one  fifth  part  of  the  public  debt  had  been  paid, 
and  if  the  system  of  taxation  that  existed  in  1869  had  been 
continued  the  debt  would  have  been  extinguished  in  less  than 
a  quarter  of  a  century  from  the  year  1869.  In  his  administra- 
tion, however,  the  crisis  was  passed.  The  ability  and  the  dis- 
position of  the  country  were  made  so  conspicuous  that  all 
honest  doubts  were  removed,  and  the  repudiators  were  shamed 
into  silence.  The  redemption  of  the  debt  by  the  purchase  of 
bonds  in  the  open  market  strengthened  the  public  credit,  and 
I  laid  a  foundation  for  the  resumption  of  specie  payments. 

General  Grant's  inaugural  address  was  followed  by  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  March  18,  1869,  entitled  "  An  act  to 


GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  STATESMAN    229 

strengthen  the  pubHc  credit."  This  act  was  a  pledge  to  the 
world  that  the  debts  of  the  United  States,  unless  there  were 
in  the  obligations  express  stipulations  to  the  contrary,  would 
be  paid  in  coin. 

In  accordance  with  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, President  Grant,  in  his  annual  message  of  December, 
1869,  recommended  the  passage  of  an  act  authorizing  the 
funding  of  the  public  debt  at  a  lower  rate  of  interest. 

Following  this  recommendation,  the  bill  for  refunding  the 
public  debt,  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  was 
enacted  and  approved  July  14,  1870. 

By  this  act  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  authorized 
to  issue  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $200,000,000  bearing  interest 
at  the  rate  of  5  per  cent,  $300,000,000  bearing  interest  at  the 
rate  of  4>4  per  cent,  and  $1,000,000,000  bearing  interest  at 
the  rate  of  4  per  cent. 

Under  this  act,  and  the  amendments  thereto,  the  debt  has 
been  refunded  from  time  to  time  until  the  average  rate  of 
interest  does  not  now  exceed  3  1-2  per  cent.  Although  these 
two  important  measures  of  administration  were  not  prepared 
by  General  Grant,  they  were  but  the  execution  of  the  policy 
set  forth  in  his  inaugural  address. 

In  respect  to  the  rights  of  the  negro  race.  General  Grant 
must  be  ranked  with  the  advanced  portion  of  the  Republican 
Party.  Upon  the  capture  of  Fort  Donelson,  a  number  of 
slaves  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Union  army.  General  Grant 
issued  an  order,  dated  Feb.  26,  1862,  in  which  he  authorized 
their  employment  for  the  benefit  of  the  Government,  and  at 
the  close  he  said  that  under  no  circumstances  would  he  permit 
their  return  to  their  masters. 

In  his  inaugural  address  he  urged  the  States  to  ratify  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  and  its  ratification  was  due,  probably, 
to  his  advice.  At  that  moment  his  influence  was  very  great. 
It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  any  other  President  ever 


230  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

enjoyed  the  confidence  of  the  countr}^  in  as  high  a  degree. 
He  gave  to  that  measure  the  weight  of  his  opinion  and  the 
official  influence  of  his  administration.  The  amendment  was 
opposed  by  the  Democratic  Party  generally,  and  a  consider- 
able body  of  Republicans  questioned  its  wisdom.  General 
Grant  was  responsible  for  the  ratification  of  the  amendment. 
Had  he  advised  its  rejection,  or  had  he  been  indifferent  to  its 
fate,  the  amendment  would  have  failed,,  and  the  country 
would  have  been  left  to  a  succession  of  bitter  controversies 
arising  from  the  application  of  the  second  section  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  which  provided  that  the  representa- 
tion of  a  State  should  be  based  upon  the  number  of  male 
citizens  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  entitled  to  vote. 

General  Grant  accepted  the  plan  of  Congress  in  regard  to 
the  reconstruction  of  the  Union.  There  were  three  opinions 
that  had  obtained  a  lodgment  in  the  public  mind.  President 
Johnson  and  his  supporters  claimed  that  the  President  held 
the  power  by  virtue  of  his  office  to  convene  the  people  of  the 
respective  States,  and  that  under  his  direction  constitutions 
might  be  framed,  and  that  Senators  and  Representatives 
might  be  chosen  who  would  be  entitled  to  seats  in  Congress 
as  though  they  represented  States  that  had  not  been  engaged 
in  secession  and  war.  Others  maintained  that  neither  by  the 
ordinances  of  secession  nor  by  the  war  had  the  States  of  the 
Confederacy  been  disturbed  in  their  legal  relations  to  the 
Union. 

It  was  the  theory  of  the  Republican  Party  in  Congress 
that  the  eleven  States  by  their  own  acts  had  destroyed  their 
legal  relations  to  the  Union;  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
National  Government  over  the  territory  of  the  seceding  States 
was  full  and  complete;  and  that,  as  a  result  of  the  war,  the 
National  Government  could  hold  them  in  a  Territorial  condi- 
tion and  subject  to  military  rule.  Upon  this  theory  the  re- 
appearance of  a  seceded  State  as  a  member  of  the  Union  was 


GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  STATESMAN         231 

made  to  depend  upon  the  assent  of  Congress,  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  President,  or  upon  an  act  of  Congress  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  over  a  Presidential  veto. 

General  Grant  sustained  the  policy  of  Congress  during  the 
long  and  bitter  contest  with  President  Johnson,  and  when  he 
became  President  he  accepted  that  policy  without  reserve  in 
the  case  of  the  restoration  of  the  States  of  Virginia,  Georgia, 
Texas,  and  Mississippi.  Upon  this  statement  it  appears  that 
General  Grant  was  a  Republican,  and  that  he  became  a  Re- 
publican by  processes  that  preclude  the  suggestion  that  his 
nomination  for  the  Presidency  wrought  any  change  in  his 
position  upon  questions  of  principle  or  policy  in  the  affairs 
of  government.  Indeed,  his  nomination  in  1868  was  dis- 
tasteful to  him,  as  he  then  preferred  to  remain  at  the  head 
of  the  army.  It  was  in  the  nature  of  things,  however,  that 
he  should  have  wished  for  a  re-election.  He  was  re-elected, 
and  at  the  end  of  his  second  term  he  accepted  a  return  to 
private  life  as  a  relief  from  the  cares  and  duties  of  office. 
The  support  which  he  received  for  the  nomination  in  1880 
was  not  due  to  any  effort  on  his  part.  Not  even  to  his  warm- 
est supporters  did  he  express  a  wish,  or  dictate  or  advise  an 
act.  His  only  utterance  was  a  message  to  four  of  his  friends 
at  the  Chicago  Convention,  that  whatever  they  might  do  in 
the  premises  would  be  acceptable  to  him.  His  political  career 
was  marked  by  the  same  abstention  from  personal  effort  for 
personal  advancement  that  distinguished  him  as  an  officer  of 
the  army.  But  he  did  not  bring  into  civil  affairs  the  habits 
of  command  that  were  the  necessity  of  military  life.  Al- 
though by  virtue  of  his  position  he  was  the  recognized  head 
of  the  Republican  Party,  he  made  no  effort  to  control  its 
action.  Wherever  he  placed  power,  there  he  reposed 
trust. 

There  was  not  in  General  Grant's  nature  any  element  of 
suspicion,  and  his  confidence    in  his   friends  was  free  and 


232  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

full.     Hence  it  happened  that  he  had  many  occasions  for 
regret. 

On  no  man  in  public  life  in  this  generation  were  there  more 
frequent  charges  and  insinuations  of  wrong-doing,  and  in 
this  generation  there  has  been  no  man  in  public  life  who  was 
freer  from  all  occasion  for  such  insinuations  and  charges. 

When  he  heard  that  the  Treasury  Department  was  pur- 
chasing bullion  of  a  company  in  which  he  was  a  stockholder, 
he  sold  his  shares  without  delay,  and  without  reference  to 
the  market  price  or  to  their  real  value. 

General  Grant  had  no  disposition  to  usurp  power.  He  had 
no  policy  to  impose  upon  the  country  against  the  popular 
will.  This  was  shown  in  the  treatment  of  the  Santo  Domingo 
question.  General  Grant  was  not  indisposed  to  see  the  terri- 
tories of  the  Republic  extended,  but  his  love  of  justice  and 
fair  dealing  w^as  such  that  he  would  have  used  only  honor- 
able means  in  his  intercourse  with  other  nations.  Santo 
Domingo  was  a  free  offering,  and  he  thought  that  its  posses- 
sion would  be  advantageous  to  the  country. 

Yet  he  never  made  it  an  issue,  even  in  his  Cabinet,  where, 
as  he  well  knew,  very  serious  doubts  existed  as  to  the  expedi- 
ency of  the  measure.  He  was  deeply  pained  by  the  unjust 
attacks  and  groundless  criticisms  of  which  he  was  the  sub- 
ject, but  he  accepted  the  adverse  judgment  of  the  Senate  as 
a  constitutional  binding  decision  of  the  question,  and  of  that 
decision  he  never  complained. 

In  a  message  to  the  Senate  of  the  31st  of  May,  1870,  he 
urged  the  annexation  of  Santo  Domingo.  He  said,  "  I  feel 
an  unusual  anxiety  for  the  ratification  of  this  treaty,  because 
I  believe  it  will  redound  greatly  to  the  glory  of  the  two  coun- 
tries interested,  to  civilization,  and  to  the  extirpation  of  the 
institution  of  slavery."  He  claimed  for  the  scheme  great 
commercial  advantages,  that  it  was  in  harmony  with  the  Mon- 
roe doctrine,   and   that  the  consummation   of   the  measure 


GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  STATESMAN        233 

would  be  notice  to  the  states  of  Europe  that  no  acquisition 
of  territory  on  this  continent  would  be  permitted.  In  his 
second  inaugural  address  General  Grant  referred  to  the  sub- 
ject in  these  words:  "  In  the  first  year  of  the  past  adminis- 
tration the  proposition  came  up  for  the  admission  of  Santo 
Domingo  as  a  Territory  of  the  Union.  ...  I  believe  now, 
as  I  did  then,  that  it  was  for  the  best  interests  of  this  coun- 
try, for  the  people  of  Santo  Domingo,  and  all  concerned,  that 
the  proposition  should  be  received  favorably.  It  was,  how- 
ever, rejected  constitutionally,  and  therefore  the  subject  was 
never  brought  up  again  by  me."  General  Grant  considered 
the  failure  of  the  treaty  as  a  national  misfortune,  but  he  never 
criticised  the  action  of  its  opponents. 

General  Grant's  firmness  was  shown  in  his  veto  of  the 
Senate  currency  bill  of  1874.  It  is  known  that  unusual  effort 
was  made  to  convince  him  that  the  measure  was  wise  in  a 
financial  view,  and  highly  expedient  upon  political  grounds. 
The  President  wrote  a  message  in  explanation  of  his  act  of 
approval,  but  upon  its  completion  he  was  so  much  dissatisfied 
with  his  own  argument  that  he  resolved  to  veto  the  bill. 
Hence  the  veto  message  of  April  22,  1874. 

In  foreign  policy,  the  principal  measure  of  General  Grant's 
administration  was  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  May, 
1 87 1.  The  specific  and  leading  purpose  of  the  negotiations 
was  the  adjustment  of  the  claim  made  by  the  United  States 
that  Great  Britain  was  liable  in  damages  for  the  destruction 
of  American  vessels,  and  the  consequent  loss  of  commercial 
power  and  prestige,  by  the  depredations  of  Confederate 
cruisers  that  were  fitted  out  or  had  obtained  supplies  in  British 
ports.  Neither  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  nor  the  subse- 
quent treaties  with  Great  Britain,  made  a  full  and  final  settle- 
ment of  the  fishery  question  or  of  our  northern  boundary- 
line  at  its  junction  with  the  Pacific  Ocean.  These  outlying 
questions  were  considered  in  the  negotiations,  and  they  were 


234  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

adjusted  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty.  The  jurisdiction  of  the 
island  of  San  Juan  on  the  Pacific  coast,  then  in  controversy, 
was  referred  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany  as  arbitrator,  with 
full  and  final  power  in  the  premises.  By  his  award  the  claim 
of  the  United  States  was  sustained. 

The  fishery  question  was  referred  to  arbitrators,  but  it  was 
a  misfortune  that  the  award  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  dispute  is  reopened  with  capacity  to  vex  the 
two  governments  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time. 

The  claims  against  Great  Britain  growing  out  of  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Confederate  cruisers,  known  as  the  Alabama 
claims,  were  referred  to  arbitrators,  by  whose  award  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  received  the  sum  of  $15,500,000. 
But  the  value  of  the  treaty  of  1871  was  not  in  the  award 
made.  The  people  of  the  United  States  were  embittered 
against  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  and  had  General 
Grant  chosen  to  seek  redress  by  arms  he  would  have  been 
sustained  throughout  the  North  with  substantial  unanimity. 
But  General  Grant  was  destitute  of  the  war  spirit,  and  he  chose 
to  exhaust  all  the  powers  of  negotiation  before  he  would  ad- 
vise a  resort  to  force.  A  passage  in  his  inaugural  address 
may  have  had  an  influence  upon  the  policy  of  the  British 
Government :  "In  regard  to  foreign  policy,  I  would  deal 
with  nations  as  equitable  law  requires  individuals  to  deal  with 
each  other.  ...  I  would  respect  the  rights  of  all  nations, 
demanding  equal  respect  for  our  own.  //  others  depart  from 
this  rule  in  their  dealings  with  us,  we  may  he  compelled  to 
follow  their  precedent." 

The  reference  of  the  question  at  issue  to  the  tribunal  at 
Geneva  was  a  conspicuous  instance  of  the  adjustment  of  a 
grave  international  dispute  by  peaceful  methods. 

By  the  sixth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1871.  three  new  rules 
were  made  for  the  government  of  neutral  nations.  These 
rules  are  binding  upon  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 


GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  STATESMAN        235 

and  the  contracting  parties  agreed  to  bring  them  to  the 
knowledge  of  other  maritime  powers,  and  to  invite  such 
powers  to  accede  to  the  rules. 

In  those  rules  it  is  stipulated  that  a  neutral  nation  should 
not  permit  a  belligerent  to  fit  out,  arm,  or  equip  in  its  ports 
any  vessel  which  it  has  reasonable  ground  to  believe  is  in- 
tended to  cruise  or  carry  on  war  against  a  power  with  w^hich 
it  is  at  peace.  It  was  further  agreed,  as  between  the  parties 
to  the  treaty,  that  neither  would  suffer  a  belligerent  to  make 
use  of  its  ports  or  waters  as  a  base  of  operations  against  the 
other.  Finally,  the  parties  agreed  to  use  due  diligence  to 
prevent  any  infraction  of  the  rules  so  established. 

Mr.  Fish  was  then  Secretary  of  State,  and  to  him  was  Gen- 
eral Grant  and  the  country  largely  indebted  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Alabama  controversy ;  but  the  settlement  was  in 
harmony  with  General  Grant's  inaugural  address. 

Before  the  final  adjustment  of  the  controversy,  by  the  de- 
cision of  the  tribunal  at  Geneva,  General  Grant  had  occasion 
to  consider  whether  the  allegation  against  Great  Britain, 
growing  out  of  her  recognition,  in  May,  1861,  of  the  belliger- 
ent character  of  the  Confederacy,  could  be  maintained  upon 
the  principles  of  public  law\  Upon  his  own  judgment  he 
reached  the  conclusion  that  the  act  was  an  act  of  sovereignty 
within  the  discretion  of  the  ruler,  for  which  a  claim  in  money 
could  not  be  made.  This  opinion  was  accepted,  finally,  by 
his  advisers,  by  the  negotiators,  and  by  the  country. 

General  Grant  was  not  a  trained  statesman.  His  methods 
of  action  were  direct  and  clear.  His  conduct  was  free  from 
duplicity,  and  artifice  of  every  sort  was  foreign  to  his  nature. 
In  the  first  years  of  his  administration  he  relied  upon  his 
Cabinet  in  all  minor  matters  relating  to  the  departments. 
Acting  upon  military  ideas,  he  held  the  head  of  a  department 
to  his  full  responsibility,  and  he  waited,  consequently,  until 
his  opinion  was  sought  or  his  instructions  were  solicited. 


236  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

In  his  conferences  with  the  members  of  his  Cabinet  he  ex- 
pressed his  opinions  with  the  greatest  freedom,  and,  upon 
discussion,  he  often  yielded  to  the  suggestions  or  arguments 
of  others.  He  was  so  great  that  it  was  not  a  humihation  to 
acknowledge  a  change  in  opinion,  or  to  admit  an  error  in 
policy  or  purpose. 

In  his  intercourse  with  members  of  Congress  upon  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Government,  he  gave  his  opinions  without  reserve 
when  he  had  reached  definite  conclusions,  but  he  often  re- 
mained a  silent  listener  to  the  discussion  of  topics  which  he 
had  not  considered  maturely. 

His  politics  were  not  narrow  nor  exclusive.  He  believed 
in  the  growth  of  the  country,  and  in  the  power  of  republican 
ideas.  He  was  free  from  race  prejudice,  and  free  from 
national  jealousy,  but  he  believed  in  the  enlargement  of  our 
territory  by  peaceful  means,  in  the  spread  of  republican  insti- 
tutions, and  in  the  predominance  of  the  English-speaking  race 
in  the  affairs  of  the  world. 

The  spirit  of  philanthropy  animated  his  politics,  and  the 
doctrines  of  peace  controlled  his  public  policy. 


XXXIX 

REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN 

GENERAL    BANKS 

OF  the  men  whom  I  have  known  in  political  affairs, 
General  Banks  was  in  his  personality  one  of  a  small 
number  who  were  always  agreeable  and  permanently 
attractive.  He  was  the  possessor  of  an  elastic  spirit;  he  was 
always  hopeful  of  the  future  and  in  adversity  he  saw  or 
fancied  that  he  saw,  days  of  prosperity  for  himself,  for  his 
party,  for  the  commonwealth  and  for  the  country.  His  in- 
terest in  the  fortunes  of  the  laboring  classes  was  a  permanent 
interest,  and  they  are  largely  indebted  to  him  for  the  passage 
of  the  eight-hour  law  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
Not  infrequently  his  thoughts  and  schemes  were  too  vast  for 
realization.  While  the  contest  in  Kansas  was  going  on,  he 
suggested  an  organization  of  capitalists  for  the  purchase  of 
the  lovv-priced  lands  in  Delaware,  then  a  sale  to  Northern 
farmers  and  the  conversion  of  Delaware  into  a  free  State. 

His  studies  in  the  law  had  been  fragmentary  and  superficial, 
and  nature  had  not  endowed  him  with  all  the  qualities  that 
are  essential  to  the  successful  lawyer.  His  reading  on  the 
literary  side  was  considerable,  especially  in  the  Spanish  lan- 
guage. Early  in  life  he  accepted  the  idea  that  our  relations 
with  the  Spanish  race  were  to  be  intimate  in  a  not  far  off 
future.  He  was  a  careful  observer  of  character,  and  of  con- 
ditions in  affairs,  and  in  a  free  debate  he  was  never  in  peril 

237 


238  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  being  overmatched.  Of  a  mutual  friend  and  an  associate 
in  politics  he  said :  "  He  has  no  serious  side  to  his  character 
— a  defect  that  has  been  the  bane  of  many  otherwise  able 
men." 

When  the  coalition  came  into  power  Banks  was  made 
speaker  of  the  Massachusetts  House  of  Representatives.  Wil- 
son was  president  of  the  Senate  and  I  was  in  the  office  of  Gov- 
ernor. In  an  evening  stroll  with  Banks  around  Boston  Com- 
mon, engaged  in  a  survey  of  public  affairs,  he  changed  the 
conversation  suddenly  with  the  remark :  "  It's  almighty  queer 
that  the  people  of  this  commonwealth  have  put  their  govern- 
ment into  the  hands  of  men  who  have  no  last  and  usual  place 
of  abode."  The  pertinency  of  this  remark  is  to  be  found  in 
the  facts  to  which  it  was  applicable.  There  were  some  men 
of  wealth  in  the  Coalition  Party  but  the  three  places  that  I 
have  named  were  held  by  men  who  were  destitute  of  even  the 
means  of  well-to-do  meclianics  and  tradespeople. 

Mr.  Banks  had  power  in  repartee  w^hich  made  him  a  for- 
midable adversary  in  parliamentary  debate.  When  he  was  a 
mechanic  at  Waltham  he  took  an  active  part  in  temperance 
meetings.  At  one  of  the  meetings  a  Unitarian  clerg}-man  of 
conservative  leanings,  made  a  speech  in  which  he  criticised 
the  speeches  and  said  finally :  '"  I  do  not  attend  the  meetings 
because  I  cannot  approve  of  what  I  hear  said."  He  then  re- 
ferred to  Mr.  Banks  as  a  young  man  who  was  guilty  of  in- 
discretions in  speech.  He  had  seen  him  once  only  at  his 
church.  He  had  made  inquiries  of  his  brethren  and  he  could 
not  learn  that  Mr.  Banks  was  a  regular  attendant  at  any 
church.  Banks  in  reply  admitted  that  he  had  been  in  the 
church  of  the  reverend  gentleman  but  once,  and  that  he  was 
not  a  regular  attendant  at  any  church.  Said  he:  "I  do  not 
go  to  church  because  I  hear  things  said  there  which  I  do  not 
approve."  The  reverend  gentleman  was  forced  to  join  in 
the  general  laugh  which  was  raised  at  his  expense. 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  239 

Two  extracts  from  General  Banks'  letters,  written  to  me 
during  the  war  may  give  an  idea  of  his  characteristics  in  his 
maturer  years. 

Headquarters,  Camp  at  Damstown,  Md., 

October  15,  1861. 
My  Dear  Sir  :  — 

I  received  your  letter  of  the  8th  inst  .  .  .  and  also  one 
of  an  earlier  date.     .     .     . 

I  am  very  glad  to  hear  from  you.  I  see  few  people  and  hear 
little  news  from  home.  Newspapers  I  have  little  relish  for 
and  scarcely  time  to  read  them,  if  I  had. 

I  am  glad  to  know  that  you  contemplate  the  army  for  a 
pursuit.  Our  people  will  in  the  end  surrender  all  business 
except  that  of  the  war,  and  that  which  pertains  to  the  war. 
Our  country  is  in  a  sad  condition.  It  is  already  clear  that 
the  influence  of  France  and  England  is  against  us.  How 
sadly  all  our  anticipations  in  regard  to  the  war  have  failed 
us, — the  insurrection  of  the  blacks,  the  material  deficiencies 
of  the  South,  their  want  of  men,  and  worst  of  all  the  friend- 
ship or  the  indifference  of  England.  We  have  now,  or  shall 
have  by  and  by  to  do  what  we  should  have  done  at  the  start, 
rely  upon  ourselves  and  prepare  for  our  work  upon  a  scale 
proportionate  to  its  magnitude.  It  would  amuse  you  to  know 
how  far  the  highest  civil  authority  is  subordinated  to  military 
direction.  I  do  not  doubt  in  the  slightest  degree  the  success 
of  the  Government  in  the  end,  but  it  grieves  me  to  see  how 
slow  we  have  been  and  still  are  in  comprehension  and 
preparation. 

This  continent  is  just  as  important  to  England  and  France 
as  it  is  to  us.  It  is  hardly  to  be  doubted  that  they  will  post- 
pone all  international  questions,  and  secure  what  has  never 
before  been  offered  to  them — a  controlling  foothold  here. 
How  many  times  I  have  spoken  to  you  in  the  old  Executive 


240  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Chamber  of  the  importance  to  the  whole  world  of  the  posses- 
sion of  Mexico — and  of  the  power  it  would  infallibly  give  on 
this  continent,  as  in  Europe  to  those  who  possessed  it.  And 
now  Spain,  France  and  England  are  there.  "  Birnam  Wood 
has  to  great  Dunsinane  come."  There  is  but  one  remedy 
for  us.  Every  male  creature  born  and  unborn  must  become 
a  soldier.  Soldiers  do  not  criticise,  so  you  must  consider  this 
Private.    And  believe  me  very  truly  yours,  etc. 

N.  P.  Banks. 

Headquarters,  Department  of  the  Gulf, 

New  Orleans,  27  Deer.  1863. 
My  Dear  Sir  : — 

I  have  written  to  the  President  upon  the  subject  of  a  free 
State  organization  in  Louisiana.  It  appears  quite  certain  to 
me  that  the  course  pursued  here  by  the  officers  to  whom  the 
matter  is  entrusted  will  not  lead  to  an  early  or  a  certain  result. 
It  will  not  be  accomplished  sooner  than  August  or  Septem- 
ber, and  then  will  be  involved  in  the  struggles  of  the  Presi- 
dential contest,  and  very  likely  share  the  fate  of  that  struggle. 
It  certainly  ought  not  to  be  dependent  upon  that  issue,  and 
settled,  not  only  independent  of  it,  but  before  it  opens.  It 
can  be  easily  done,  in  March.  A  Free  State  government 
upon  the  basis  of  immediate  emancipation  can  be  acquired  as 
early  as  March  with  the  general  consent  of  the  People,  and 
without  any  material  opposition,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  draw 
after  it  all  the  Southern  States,  on  the  same  basis,  and  by 
the  same  general  consent.  But  it  cannot  be  done  in  the  man- 
ner now  proposed  here.  It  is  upon  this  subject  that  I  have 
written  the  President.  Three  months  ago  I  wrote  him  upon 
the  same  idea  but  did  not  send  my  letter.  Subsequent  reflec- 
tion and  inquiry  have  made  the  theory  so  clear  to  mind  that 
I  felt  impelled  to  put  my  views  before  him.  I  write  this  as 
from  the  request  of  my  previous  letter  you  may  have  spoken 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  241 

to  him  upon  the  subject  of  the  Depart't  and  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  State.  The  election  of  next  year  does  not  seem 
as  clear  to  me  as  it  appears  to  you.  I  fancy  it  to  be  a  struggle 
between  the  Democratic  Party,  backed  by  the  entire  power  of 
the  regular  army  and  the  People.  It  will  be  a  contest  of 
great  violence. 

sjf  Hi  sJf  ^ic  stf  ^Ic  ^Ic  sic 

The  report  of  General  Hallock  is  singularly  incorrect,  in 
its  references  to  the  Department — so  much  so  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  attribute  them  to  anything  else  but  misapprehen- 
sion of  facts.  I  refer  to  that  which  relates  to  Galveston,  and 
the  movement  against  Port  Hudson  in  April.  If  it  were  not 
so  palpable,  I  shd  think  the  Department  hostile  &  shd  be  very 
glad  to  know  if  you  see  or  hear  anything  to  indicate  such 
feeling  towards  me.  General  Wilson  would  probably  know 
the  facts. 

The  Austrian  Consul  here,  said  to  me  the  other  day  that 
he  was  confident  that  Maximilian  would  not  go  to  Mexico. 
He  is  a  sensible  and  well  informed  man,  and  I  have  confi- 
dence in  his  opinion.  I  shall  send  you  by  Satds  mail  three 
despatches  from  Europe  of  recent  date. 

Very  truly  yours, 

N.  P.  Banks. 

M.  G.  C. 

Hon.  Geo.  S.  Boutwell. 

As  the  conclusion  of  my  remarks  upon  General  Banks,  I 
refer  to  my  final  and  unexaggerated  estimate  of  General 
Banks  as  given  in  the  chapter  on  the  Legislature  of  1849 
(Chapter  XIV). 

GENERAL   SHERMAN,   GENERAL   SHERIDAN    AND   GENERAL 

GRANT 

The  death  of  General  Sherman  removed  the  last  member 
of  the  triumvirate  of  soldiers  who  achieved  the  highest  dis- 


242  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

tinction  in  the  Civil  War.  In  the  Senate  one  speaker  gave 
him  the  highest  place,  but  on  the  contrary,  I  cannot  rank 
him  above  either  Grant  or  Sheridan.  When  we  consider  the 
vastness  of  the  command  with  which  Grant  was  entrusted 
through  a  period  of  more  than  a  year,  the  magnitude  and 
success  of  his  operations,  and  the  tenacity  with  which  he 
prosecuted  all  his  varied  undertakings,  it  must  appear  that 
neither  Sherman  nor  Sheridan  was  entitled  to  the  position  of 
a  rival.  As  to  Sherman,  I  can  say  from  a  long  and  intimate 
acquaintance  with  him,  and  under  circumstances  when  his 
real  feeling  would  have  been  disclosed,  that  he  never  assumed 
an  equality  with  Grant. 

As  between  Sherman  and  Sheridan  it  is  not  easy  to  settle 
the  question  of  pre-eminence.  For  myself  the  test  would  be 
this :  Assume  that  Grant  had  disappeared  during  the  Battles 
of  the  Wilderness,  would  the  fortunes  of  the  country  have 
been  best  promoted,  probably,  by  the  appointment  of  Sher- 
man or  Sheridan  ?  I  cannot  now  say  what  my  opinion  would 
have  been  in  1864,  but  I  should  now  have  pronounced  for 
Sheridan.  He  was  more  cool  and  careful  in  regard  to  the 
plan  of  operations  and  equally  bold  and  vigorous  in  execution. 
General  Grant  expressed  the  opinion  to  me  in  conversation 
that  Sheridan  was  the  best  officer  in  the  army.  He  spoke  of 
his  care  and  coolness  in  the  preparation  of  his  plans  and  his 
celerity  in  execution.  Of  "  the  younger  set  of  officers  "  he 
placed  Ames  (Adelbert)  as  the  most  promising. 

In  one  of  my  last  conversations  with  Sheridan  he  expressed 
the  opinion  that  the  improvement  in  the  material  of  war  was 
so  great  that  nations  could  not  make  war,  such  would  be  the 
destruction  of  human  life. 

Upon  his  return  from  Germany  at  the  end  of  the  Franco- 
Prussian  War,  he  spoke  very  disparagingly  of  the  military 
movements  and  among  several  things  he  said  that  the  French 
forces  were  placed  where  the  Germans  would  have  dictated 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  243 

had  they  had  the  power.  He  added  that  either  of  our  armies 
at  the  close  of  the  war  could  have  marched  over  the  country 
in  defiance  of  both  the  French  and  German  forces  combined. 
This  was  a  rash  remark,  probably;  a  remark  which  he  could 
not  justify  upon  the  facts.  Without  intending  to  betray  any 
confidence,  the  remark,  as  coming  through  me,  got  into  the 
newspapers.  Sheridan  with  a  skill  superior  to  that  of  poli- 
ticians caused  the  announcement  to  be  made  that  General 
Sheridan  had  never  had  any  conversation  with  Governor 
Boutwell  in  regard  to  the  Franco-Prussian  War. 

At  the  end  it  may  be  claimed  justly,  that  they  were  three 
great  soldiers — that  they  served  the  country  with  equal  fidel- 
ity— that  they  lived  and  acted  without  the  manifestation  in 
either  of  a  feeling  of  rivalry,  and  that  they  earned  the  public 
gratitude. 

The  death  of  General  Sherman  was  followed  by  two  con- 
tradictory statements  from  his  sons.  The  younger,  Tecum- 
seh,  is  reported  as  saying  that  his  father  was  never  a  Catholic, 
while  the  older,  Thomas,  who  is  a  priest  of  the  Order  of 
Jesuits,  has  stated  over  his  signature  that  his  father  was 
baptized  as  a  Catholic,  was  married  as  a  Catholic,  and  that 
he  had  heard  him  say  often,  "  that  if  there  was  any  true 
religion  it  was  the  Catholic." 

All  this  may  be  true  and  yet  General  Sherman  may  not 
have  been  a  Catholic.  His  baptism  may  have  been  without 
his  consent  or  knowledge,  his  marriage  by  the  Catholic 
Church  may  have  been  in  deference  to  his  wife's  wishes,  and 
because  he  was  wholly  indifferent  to  the  matter,  and  the  re- 
mark may  have  been  made  in  the  impression  that  there  was 
no  true  religion,  and  that  the  Catholic  was  as  likely,  or  even 
more  likely  to  be  true,  than  any  other. 

The  statement  made  by  Thomas  puts  an  imputation  upon 
General  Sherman  that  he  ought  not  to  bear.  Of  the  thou- 
sands that  one  may  meet  in  a  lifetime,    General    Sherman 


244  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

was  among  the  freest  from  anything  in  the  nature  of  hypoc- 
risy or  dissimulation.  Of  those  who  knew  him  intimately 
after  the  close  of  the  war  there  are  but  few,  probably,  who 
did  not  hear  him  speak  with  hostility  and  bitterness  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  For  myself  I  can  say  that  I  heard  him 
speak  in  terms  of  contempt  of  the  church.  On  one  occasion 
with  reference  to  fasts  and  abstinence  from  meat  on  Friday, 
he  said : 

'*  1  know  better  than  these  priests  what  I  want  to  eat." 
General  Sherman  was  not  a  friend  to  the  Catholic  Church 
in  the  last  years  of  his  life  and  there  is  no  honor  in  the  attempt 
to  enroll  his  name  among  its  devotees  now  that  he  is  dead 
and  cannot  speak  for  himself. 

SECRETARY  WINDOM 

Funeral  services  were  performed  February  2,  1891,  at  the 
Church  of  the  Covenant  in  Washington  in  honor  of  Mr. 
Windom,  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  He  made  a  good 
record,  if  not  a  distinguished  one.  As  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  and  of  the  Senate  he  was  noted  for 
fairness,  for  freedom  from  bitterness  of  opinion  upon  party 
questions,  and  for  good  sense  in  action. 

He  was  indisposed  to  take  responsibility  and  he  went  no 
farther  than  the  case  in  hand  seemed  to  require.  As  the 
head  of  the  Treasury  he  was  anxious  to  gather  opinions  upon 
matters  of  general  public  interest,  and  it  was  in  his  nature 
to  strive  to  accommodate  his  action  to  the  public  opinion,  if 
he  could  do  so  without  serious  consequences.  He  worked 
within  narrow  limits,  the  limits  set  by  business  and  politics. 
Of  enemies  he  had  but  iew — of  warm  friends  but  few — 
the  many  had  confidence  in  his  integrity  in  the  affairs  of 
government,  and  in  his  ability  to  guide  those  affairs  in  or- 
dinary times. 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  24S 

JAMES  RUSSELL  LOWELL 

In  a  number  of  the  Edinburgh  Review  is  an  article  on 
James  Russell  Lowell  in  which  the  writer  errs  widely  in  two 
particulars  as  to  the  effect  of  the  "  Biglow  Papers."  The 
writer's  name  is  not  given,  but  he  is  not  an  American  and 
he  is  ignorant,  probably,  of  America  as  it  was  from  1830  to 
1850.  When  the  "  Biglow  Papers "  appeared,  I  was  a 
Democrat,  and  I  am  quite  sure  that  the  publication  produced 
no  effect  not  even  the  least,  upon  the  opinions  of  Democrats 
or  the  action  of  the  Democratic  Party.  Upon  my  knowledge 
of  the  Democratic  Party  I  can  say  with  confidence  that  the 
writer  is  in  error  when  he  says:  "  He  (Lowell)  converted 
many  bigoted  Northern  Democrats  to  a  course  of  action  in 
conflict  with  their  old  party  relations  and  apparent  interests." 

For  this  broad  statement  there  is  no  evidence.  The  first 
break  came  in  1848  and  it  was  due  to  rivalries  in  the  Demo- 
cratic Party.  If  the  "  Biglow  Papers  "  played  any  part  it 
was  too  unimportant  to  produce  an  appreciable  result.  They 
were  treated  as  a  fortunate  jeu  d'esprit  that  everybody  en- 
joyed, but  the  Democratic  Party  did  not  change  its  policy 
nor  did  it  lose  adherents.  The  Mexican  War  was  prosecuted 
and  bigotry  political  and  religious  continued  to  flourish. 
They  may  have  contributed  though,  insensibly,  to  a  public 
opinion  that  became  formidable  in  the  end  but  the  effect  was 
not  as  perceptible  as  was  the  effect  of  Garrison's  legend  that 
slavery  was  a  covenant  with  hell  and  a  league  with  death, 
which  had  its  place  at  the  head  of  the  Liberator  through  suc- 
cessive years.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  "  it  revolutionized  the 
tone  of  Northern  society."  Indeed,  there  is  a  "  tone "  of 
Northern  society  that  has  not  been  revolutionized  to  this 
day.  The  South  is  still  the  land  of  gentle  birth.  The  slave- 
holder still  lives  as  a  man  of  breeding  and  the  owner  of  es- 
tates.    The  negro  is  still  of  an  inferior  caste  and  in  some 


246  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

circles  the  days  of  slavery  were  the  great  clays  of  the  Republic. 
When  tlie  "  Biglow  Papers  "  appeared  Mr.  Lowell  had  not 
achieved  distinction.  Society  did  not  know  him  to  follow  him. 
It  cared  nothing  for  what  he  thought,  and  it  was  only  amused 
by  what  he  said.  The  Lowell  of  1840  was  not  the  Lowell 
of  1890.  Nor  can  any  series  of  statements  be  more  un- 
truthful and  absurd  than  the  statements  of  the  writer  that 
"  thenceforth  it  became  creditable  to  advocate  abolition  in 
drawing  rooms,  and  to  preach  it  from  fashionable  city  pul- 
pits to  congregations  paying  fancy  prices  for  their  pews.  In 
the  workshops,  the  barrooms  and  other  popular  resorts  the 
laugh  was  turned  against  the  slave-owners;  the  ground  was 
prepared  for  the  popular  enthusiasm  which  recruited  the 
armies  that  exhausted  the  South,  and  Lowell  must  share  with 
Lincoln  and  Grant  the  glory  of  the  crowning  victories." 

If  any  work  of  romance  contains  more  fiction  in  the  same 
space,  it  is  my  fortune  not  to  have  seen  that  work.  The  cir- 
culation of  the  Boston  Couriei'  in  v^hich  the  papers  were 
printed  was  very  limited.  It  did  not  go  into  barrooms  nor 
into  workshops.  It  was  read  chiefly  by  the  converted  and 
semi-converted  abolitionists.  As  to  fashionable  pulpits 
thenceforth  preaching  abolition  it  is  to  be  said  that  there 
was  only  one  leading  pulpit,  Theodore  Parker's  pulpit,  in 
which  abolitionism  was  tolerated  until  years  after  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  "  Biglow  Papers."  As  to  society,  it  is  to 
be  said  that  in  the  Fifties  Charles  Sumner,  a  Senator,  was 
ostracized  for  his  opinions  upon  slavery. 

It  is  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  what  passes  for  society 
in  New  England  never  tolerated  abolitionists  nor  encouraged 
abolitionism. 

The  one  writing  which  in  an  historical  point  of  view  con- 
tributed most  largely  to  recruit  the  armies  of  the  Republic 
during  the  rebellion  was  Webster's  speech  in  reply  to  Hayne. 
The  closing  paragraph  of  that  speech  was  in  the  schoolbooks 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  247 

of  the  free  States,  and  it  had  been  declaimed  from  many  a 
schoolhouse  stage. 

Lowell  deserves  credit  for  what  he  did.  He  chose  his 
place  early  and  firmly  on  the  anti-slavery  side,  but  it  is 
absurd  and  false  to  say  that  thenceforward  and  therefor  aboli- 
tion became  popular  and  abolitionists  the  sought  for  or  the 
accepted  by  society.  Mr.  Lowell  was  the  son  of  a  Boston 
Unitarian  clergyman.  In  the  Forties  he  had  not  gained  stand- 
ing ground  for  himself,  to  omit  all  thought  of  his  ability  to 
carry  an  unpopular  cause. 

Indeed,  up  to  the  time  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise the  whole  array  of  anti-slavery  writers  and  speakers 
had  not  accomplished  the  results  which  the  reviewer  attributes 
to  the  "  Biglow  Papers." 

Indeed,  should  there  be  a  signal  reform  in  the  fashion  and 
cost  of  ladies'  dresses  it  might  with  equal  propriety  be  at- 
tributed to  Butler's  poem  "  Nothing  to  Wear." 

GENERAL  GARFIELD  AND  GENERAL  ROSECRANS 

The  statement  is  revived  that  General  Garfield,  when  chief 
of  the  staff  of  General  Rosecrans  in  the  campaign  which 
ended  at  Chickamauga  was  false  to  Rosecrans.  The  allega- 
tion and  the  fact  are  that  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Chase,  then  in  Mr. 
Lincoln's  Cabinet,  that  Rosecrans  was  incompetent  to  the 
command.  Garfield's  statements,  as  I  recall  the  letters,  were 
free  from  malice  and  the  professional  and  ethical  question  is, 
"  Was  Garfield  justified  as  a  citizen  and  soldier,  in  giving  his 
opinion  to  the  Administration  ?  "  His  view  of  Rosecrans  was 
confirmed  by  events,  and  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  opinion 
was  free  from  any  improper  influence  when  the  letters  were 
written.  On  this  assured  basis  of  facts  I  cannot  doubt  that 
Garfield  did  only  what  was  his  duty.  Neither  the  President 
nor  the  War  Department  could  obtain  specific  knowledge  of 
the  officers  in  command  except  through  associates  and  sub- 


248  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ordinates  unless  they  trusted  to  newspapers  and  casual  visitors 
to  the  army.  The  struggle  was  a  desperate  one  and  the  vol- 
unteer army  was  composed  of  men  who  were  citizens  before 
they  were  soldiers  and  they  remained  citizens  when  they  be- 
came soldiers.  Garfield  was  of  the  citizen  soldiery  and  to 
him  and  to  the  country  the  etiquette  of  the  army  and  the 
etiquette  of  society  were  subordinate  to  the  fortunes  of  the 
nation.  Of  General  Rosecrans'  unfitness  for  any  important 
command  there  can  be  no  doubt.  After  the  disaster  at 
Chickamauga,  Rosecrans  was  relieved  and  General  Thomas 
was  put  in  command  and  General  Grant  was  ordered  to  the 
field.  He  met  Rosecrans  at  Nashville  where  they  had  an 
interview.  From  General  Grant  I  received  the  statement  that 
Rosecrans  had  sound  views  as  to  the  means  of  relieving  the 
army;  "And"  said  General  Grant  "my  wonder  was  that 
he  had  not  put  them  in  execution." 

This  one  fact  expresses  enough  of  the  weak  side  of  Rose- 
crans as  a  military  leader  to  warrant  the  opinion  given  to 
Chase  by  Garfield,  and  that  opinion  having  been  formed  upon 
a  knowledge  of  facts  and  of  Rosecrans  as  a  military  man  and 
not  from  prejudice  or  rivalry,  Garfield  should  be  honored  for 
his  course,  rather  than  condemned. 

GEORGE   BANCROFT 

The  death  of  Mr.  Bancroft  at  the  age  of  more  than  ninety 
years  removes  one  of  the  few  men  in  private  life  who  can 
be  ranked  as  personages.  He  was,  perhaps,  the  only  person 
in  private  life  whose  death  would  have  received  a  semi-public 
recognition  from  any  of  the  rulers  of  Europe.  Such  a  rec- 
ognition was  accorded  by  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  and 
chiefly,  as  it  is  understood,  on  account  of  the  friendship  which 
existed  between  Mr.  Bancroft  and  the  grandfather  of  the 
present  Emperor. 

Mr.  Bancroft's  long  and  successful  career  as  a  writer  and 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  249 

diplomatist  would  seem  to  be  evidence  of  the  presence  of 
qualities  of  a  high  order,  and  yet  no  one  who  was  near  him 
accepted  that  opinion.  His  conversation  was  not  instructive, 
certainly  not  in  later  years,  nor  was  he  an  original  thinker 
upon  any  subject.  He  was  an  enthusiast  in  politics  in  early 
and  middle  life,  and  while  his  mental  faculties  remained  un- 
impaired his  interest  in  political  movements  was  great — and 
usually  it  was  in  sympathy  with  the  Democratic  Party.  He 
was  an  adhesive  man  in  politics,  capable  of  appearing  to  be 
reconciled  to  the  success  of  his  opponents  and  ready  to  accept 
favors  from  them  in  the  way  of  office  and  honors  and  yet 
without  in  fact  committing  himself  to  their  policy. 

He  was  a  laborious  student,  and  he  had  access  to  standard 
and  in  many  particulars  to  original  authorities.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  his  history  he  erred  in  denying  with  much  con- 
fidence the  claim  of  the  visits  of  the  Northmen  to  this  conti- 
nent in  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries. 

That  early  claim  seems  to  be  supported  by  evidence  which 
is  nearly,  if  not  absolutely,  conclusive.  Of  all  his  chapters 
that  on  Washington  was  most  attractive  to  me  and  it  is  quite 
the  equal  of  Mr.  Everett's  oration,  that  yielded  a  large  sum 
of  money,  that  the  orator  applied  to  the  purchase  of  Mount 
Vernon.  Mr.  Bancroft  aimed  to  illustrate  his  history  by  an 
exhibition  of  philosophy.  This  feat  in  literature  can  be  ac- 
complished successfully  only  by  a  great  mind.  First  the 
events,  then  the  reasons  for  or  sources  of,  then  the  conse- 
quences, then  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  the  human  agencies 
that  have  had  part  in  weaving  the  web,  are  all  to  be  considered. 
Examples  are  Gibbon  and  Buckle. 

GENERAL  GRANT  AS  A  MAN   AND  A  FRIEND 

The  simplicity  of  General  Grant's  nature,  his  frankness  in 
all  his  intercourse  with  his  fellow  men,  his  freedom  from 
duplicity  were  not  touched  unfavorably  in  any  degree  by  his 


250  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

rapid  advancement  from  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  ordinary  men 
to  the  highest  places  in  mihtary  and  civil  life.  There  was 
never  in  his  career  any  ostentatious  display  of  power,  never 
any  exercise  of  wanton  or  unnecessary  authority. 

He  disliked  controversy  even  in  conversation,  and  his  ret- 
icence when  not  in  the  company  of  habitual  companions  and 
trusted  friends  was  due  in  part  to  his  rule  of  life  on  that 
subject. 

From  the  many  years  of  my  acquaintance  with  General 
Grant  I  cannot  recall  an  instance  of  a  reference  to  theological 
opinions  upon  controverted  topics  of  faith. 

The  humanitarian  side  of  his  nature  was  strong,  but  it 
was  not  ostentatiously  exhibited — indeed  it  was  concealed 
rather  than  proclaimed.  It  was  made  known  to  me  by  his 
interest  and  by  his  lack  of  interest  in  appointments  in  the 
Treasury  Department. 

Of  salaried  places  he  controlled  the  appointment  of  General 
Pleasanton  as  commissioner  of  internal  revenue,  and  of  that 
only. 

On  several  occasions  he  suggested  the  designation  of  a 
person  named  for  employment  in  some  menial  and  non- 
salaried  service.  The  person  named  was  in  every  instance  the 
wudow  or  daughter  of  some  soldier  of  the  war.  At  intervals, 
not  widely  separated,  he  would  bring  the  subject  to  my  notice. 
Thus,  without  a  command,  I  was  forced  to  follow  his  sug- 
gestion. 

The  purity  of  his  conversation  might  have  been  a  worthy 
example  for  the  most  carefully  trained  person  in  etiquette  and 
morals.  My  intercourse  with  General  Grant  was  intimate 
through  many  years,  and  never  on  any  occasion  did  he  repeat 
a  story  or  a  phrase  that  contained  a  profane  remark  or  carried 
a  vulgar  allusion.  He  had  a  relish  for  untainted  wit  and  for 
genial  humor,  and  for  humor  he  had  some  capacity.  He  was 
not  an  admirer  of  Mr.  Sumner  and  a  trace  of  irony  may  be 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  251 

found  in  a  remark  attributed  to  him :  When  some  one  said : 
"  Mr.  Sumner  does  not  believe  in  the  Bible,"  General  Grant 
said :  "  No,  I  suppose  not,  he  didn't  write  it." 

General  Grant  was  attracted  by  a  horse  driven  by  a  butcher. 
He  purchased  the  animal  at  the  cost  of  five  hundred  dollars. 
He  invited  Senator  Conkling  to  a  drive  behind  the  new 
horse.  The  Senator  criticised  the  animal,  and  said :  "  I 
think  I  should  prefer  the  five  hundred  dollars  to  the 
horse."  "  That  is  what  the  butcher  thought,"  said  General 
Grant. 

He  was  sincere  and  devoted  in  his  friendships,  but  when  he 
discovered  that  his  confidence  had  been  misplaced,  a  recon- 
ciliation became  impossible.  With  him  there  could  be  no 
genuine  forgiveness,  and  his  nature  could  not  tolerate  any 
degree  of  hypocrisy.  All  voluntary  intercourse  on  his  part 
had  come  to  an  end. 

There  was  a  time  when  a  demand  for  my  removal  from 
office  was  made  by  some  Republican  Senators  and  by  the  New 
York  Herald,  to  which  he  gave  no  attention. 

The  imperturbability  of  spirit  which  was  indicated  in  his 
conversation  and  movements  was  deep-seated  in  his  nature. 
I  was  with  him  in  a  night  trip  to  New  York;  when  the 
train  was  derailed  in  part.  As  the  wheels  of  the  car  struck 
the  sleepers,  he  grasped  the  back  of  the  seat  in  front  of  him 
and  remained  motionless,  while  many  of  the  passengers  added 
to  their  peril  by  abandoning  their  seats. 

On  a  time  General  Grant  received  a  pair  of  large  roan 
horses  from  his  farm  in  Missouri.  He  invited  me  to  take 
one  of  the  horses  and  join  him  in  a  ride  on  the  saddle.  I 
declined  the  invitation.  I  was  then  invited  to  take  a  seat  with 
him  in  an  open  wagon.  When  we  were  descending  a  slight 
declivity  one  of  the  horses  laid  his  weight  on  the  pole  and 
broke  it,  although  the  parts  did  not  separate.  General  Grant 
placed  his  foot  upon  the  wheel,  thus  making  a  brake  and 


252  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

saving  us  from  a  disaster.    General  Grant's  faculties  were  at 
command  on  the  instant  and  under  all  circumstances. 

When  the  Ku  Klux  organizations  were  active  in  the  South, 
the  President  gave  members  of  Congress  to  understand  that 
he  would  send  a  message  with  a  recommendation  for  punitive 
legislation.  Upon  reflection  he  came  to  doubt  the  wisdom  of 
the  measure,  especially  as  the  use  of  the  military  forces  at 
New  Orleans  and  elsewhere  had  been  criticised  in  the  country. 
While  the  subject  was  thus  undisposed  of,  I  received  a 
message  from  the  President  which  ended  with  a  request  that 
I  should  accompany  him  to  the  Capitol.  On  the  way  he  in- 
formed me  that  he  doubted  the  wisdom  of  a  message  and 
that  he  intended  to  so  inform  those  to  whom  he  had  given 
encouragement.  At  the  interview  which  followed  several 
members  who  were  present  urged  adherence  to  the  original 
policy.  While  the  discussion  was  going  on,  the  President  re- 
turned to  his  original  opinion  and  wrote  a  message  which  was 
transmitted  to  the  Congress  after  one  or  two  verbal  changes 
that  may  have  been  suggested  by  Secretary  Fish  or  Secretary 
Robeson. 

General  Grant's  sense  of  justice  was  exact  and  he  did  not 
spare  himself  in  his  criticisms.  He  said  to  me  in  conversa- 
tion, what  is  indicated  in  his  Memoirs,  that  he  assumed  some 
responsibility  upon  himself  for  the  removal  of  General  War- 
ren at  Five  Forks.  He  had  known  that  General  Warren  was 
disqualified  by  natural  defects  from  command  in  the  field, 
and  hence  that  it  was  an  error  on  his  part  that  he  had  not 
assigned  Warren  to  duty  at  a  station. 

Again  he  said  to  me  that  his  final  campaign  against  Vicks- 
burg  was  the  only  one  of  his  campaigns  that  he  could  not 
criticise  adversely  when  tested  by  reflection  and  experience. 

During  my  term  of  service  an  appointment  of  some  im- 
portance was  made  by  the  collector  of  New  York.  The  ap- 
pointment was  approved  by  me.     In  the  meantime  some  op- 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  253 

ponents  of  the  appointee  approached  the  President.  Upon  his 
suggestion  the  appointment  was  suspended.  After  a  delay  I 
received  a  letter  from  the  President  dated  June  28,  1869,  in 
which  he  says :  "  If  it  should  still  be  the  pleasure  of  Mr.  Grin- 
nell  to  confer  the  appointment  before  tendered,  let  it  be  so,  so 


^OcJ— *^*<ti^    J /*t<^  ^»«t*^  .^Jf//i^  ^^L^    .^SCy**^ 
^^Uvw   /^^te,^    ^1^^  ^*.^  £^J  y^J*   a1    *^  ^*:^<K-.^ 


far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  am  not  willing  knowingly  to  do 
anyone  injustice  as  I  now  am  led  to  believe  I  may  have  done 
in  the  case  of  General  Egan." 

In  the  month  of  December,  1884,  there  were  paragraphs  in 


254  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  newspapers  which  justified  the  apprehension  that  General 
Grant  was  suffering  from  a  cancer.  In  the  late  days  of  that 
month,  I  called  upon  him  at  his  house  in  New  York.  He 
was  then  in  good  health,  apparently.  I  found  him  in  his 
library  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  articles  for  the  Century 
Magazine.  In  the  days  of  our  more  intimate  acquaintance  he 
had  said  to  me  that  it  was  his  purpose  to  leave  the  history  of 
his  campaigns  to  others.  He  referred  to  that  remark  and  said 
that  his  financial  embarrassments  had  forced  him  to  change 
his  purpose.  As  I  was  about  to  leave,  he  referred  to  a  diffi- 
culty in  his  throat  that  he  had  noticed  for  about  six  months. 
He  expressed  the  fear  that  he  had  neglected  it  too  long.  I 
avoided  any  serious  remark  in  reply.  Soon  after  my  return 
to  Groton  my  daughter  received  a  letter  from  him,  which,  in 
photographic  copy,  I  here  give.  It  contains  his  parting  words 
to  me  and  to  my  family.  It  is  a  precious  souvenir  of  my 
acquaintance  and  service  with  a  man  who  was  great  and  good 
above  any  estimate  that  the  world  has  placed  upon  him. 

I  called  upon  him  in  the  month  of  June.  He  rose  to  re- 
ceive me.  His  power  of  speech  was  much  impaired,  and  our 
interview  was  brief.    The  final  parting  was  a  sad  event  to  me. 

*  GRANT    AS    A    SOLDIER 

When  General  Grant  came  before  the  public,  and  into  a 
position  that  compelled  notice,  he  was  called  to  meet  a  diffi- 
culty that  his  predecessor  in  the  office  of  President  had  en- 
countered and  overcome  successfully. 

An  opinion  existed  in  the  cultivated  classes,  an  opinion 
that  was  especially  local  in  the  East,  that  a  great  place  could 
not  be  filled  wisely  and  honorably,  unless  the  occupant  had 
had  the  benefit  of  a  university  training. 

Of  such  training  Mr.  Lincoln  was  destitute,  utterly,  and 
the  training  which  General  Grant  had  received  at  West 
*  From  the  New  York  Independent. 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  255 

foint,  where  it  was  his  fortune  to  attain  only  to  advanced 
standing  in  the  lower  half  of  his  class,  was  at  the  best  the 
training  thought  to  be  necessary  for  the  vocation  of  a  soldier. 
That  minority  of  critics  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  world 
had  set  the  seal  of  its  favorable  judgment  upon  Cromwell, 
Washington,  Franklin,  Napoleon,  Hamilton  and  others  who 
had  not  the  advantages  of  university  training.  Napoleon  in 
a  military  school  and  Hamilton  in  Columbia  College  for  the 
term,  of  a  year,  more  or  less,  did  not  rank  among  university 
men. 

That  minority  of  critics  did  not  realize  the  fact  that  col- 
leges and  universities  cannot  make  great  men.  Great  men 
are  independent  of  colleges  and  universities.  In  truth,  a 
really  great  man  is  supreme  over  colleges  and  universities. 

Lincoln  was  such  a  man  in  speech,  in  power  of  argument, 
in  practical  wisdom,  by  which  he  was  enabled  to  act  fear- 
lessly and  with  success  in  the  great  affairs  of  administration. 

Such  a  man  was  General  Grant  on  the  military  side  of  his 
career.  With  great  military  capacity,  he  was  destitute  of 
the  military  spirit.  During  the  period  of  his  retirement  from 
the  army  after  the  close  of  the  Mexican  War  he  gave  no  at- 
tention to  military  affairs.  When  he  came  to  Washington 
in  1865  as  General  of  the  Army,  he  was  not  the  owner  of  a 
work  on  war  nor  on  the  military  art  or  science. 

His  military  capacity  was  an  endowment.  It  might  have 
been  impaired  or  crippled  by  the  training  of  a  university;  but 
it  is  doubtful  whether  it  could  have  been  improved  thereby, 
and  it  is  certain  that  it  was,  in  its  quality,  quite  outside  of  the 
possibilities  of  university  training. 

As  General  Grant  approached  the  end  of  his  career  the 
voice  of  the  critics,  who  judged  men  by  the  testimony  of 
college  catalogues  and  the  decorations  of  learned  societies, 
was  heard  less  frequently;  and  his  death,  followed  by  the 
publication  of  his  memoirs,  written  when  the  hand  of  death 


256  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

was  upon  him,  silenced  the  Hterary  critics  at  once  and  for- 
ever. 

Since  the  month  of  July,  1885,  there  has  appeared  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic  a  set  of  military  critics,  of  whom 
General  Wolseley,  Commander  of  the  British  /\rmy,  must  be 
treated  as  the  chief,  who  deny  to  General  Grant  the  posses- 
sion of  superior  military  qualities,  and  who  assert  that  Gen- 
eral Lee  was  his  superior  in  the  contest  which  they  carried 
on  from  February,  1864,  to  April,  1865.  On  this  side  of 
the  Atlantic  there  is  toleration,  if  not  active  and  open  sup- 
port of  General  Wolseley's  opinion. 

General  Wolseley  is  entitled  to  an  opinion  and  to  the  ex- 
pression of  his  opinion;  but  his  authority  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted. On  the  practical  side  of  military  affairs  his  ex- 
perience is  a  limited  experience  only. 

It  is  not  known  that  General  Wolseley  ever,  in  any 
capacity,  engaged  in  any  battle  that  can  be  named  in  com- 
parison with  the  battles  of  the  Wilderness,  with  Spottsyl- 
vania,  with  Cold  Harbor,  or  the  battle  of  Five  Forks;  and 
it  is  certain  that  it  was  never  his  fortune  to  put  one  hundred 
thousand  men,  or  even  fifty  thousand  men,  into  the  wage 
of  battle  and  thus  assume  the  responsibility  of  the  con- 
test. 

It  was  never  the  necessity  of  the  situation  that  General 
Lee  should  assume  the  offensive,  and  in  the  two  instances 
where  he  did  assume  the  offensive  his  campaigns  were  fail- 
ures; and  can  any  one  doubt  that  if  General  Grant  had 
been  in  command  either  at  Antietam  or  Gettysburg,  the  war 
would  then  have  come  to  an  end  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Potomac  River  by  the  capture  of  Lee's  army?  If  this  be 
so,  then  Lee's  undertaking  was  a  hazard  for  which  there 
could  have  been  no  justifying  reason,  and  his  escape  from 
destruction  was  due  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  men  in  com- 
mand of  the  Northern  armies.     Following  this   remark  I 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  257 

ought  to  say  that  General  Meade  was  a  brave  and  patriotic 
officer,  but  he  lacked  the  qualities  which  enable  a  man  to  act 
promptly  and  wisely  in  great  exigencies.  While  General 
Lee  was  acting  on  the  defensive  did  he  engage  in  and  suc- 
cessfully execute  any  strategic  movement  that  can  be  com- 
pared with  Grant's  campaign  of  May,  1863,  through  Mis- 
sissippi and  to  the  rear  of  Vicksburg?  Or  can  General 
Wolseley  cite  an  instance  of  individual  genius  and  power 
more  conspicuous  than  the  relief  of  our  besieged  army  at 
Chattanooga,  followed  by  the  sanguinary  battle  of  Mis- 
sionary Ridge,  the  capture  of  six  thousand  prisoners,  forty 
pieces  of  artillery,  seven  thousand  stands  of  small  arms  and 
large  quantities  of  other  material  of  war? 

During  the  period  of  reconstruction  Alexander  H.  Stevens 
was  examined  by  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  as  to  the  condition  and  purposes 
of  the  South.  When  the  examination  was  over  I  asked  him 
when  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  South  was  to  be 
defeated.  He  said:  "In  the  year  1862."  I  then  said: 
"  In  that  year  you  had  your  successes.  What  were  the 
grounds  of  your  conclusions?  "  In  reply  he  said:  "  It  was 
then  that  I  first  realized  that  the  North  was  putting  its  whole 
force  into  the  contest,  and  I  knew  that  in  such  a  contest  we 
were  to  be  destroyed." 

If  I  were  to  imagine  a  reason,  or  to  suggest  an  excuse  for 
General  Lee's  two  unsuccessful  aggressive  campaigns,  I 
should  assume  that,  simultaneously  with  Mr.  Stevens,  he 
had  reached  the  conclusion  that  time  was  on  the  side  of  the 
North,  and  that  the  Fabian  policy  must  fail  in  the  end. 

In  an  aggressive  movement  there  was  one  chance  of  suc- 
cess. A  victory  and  capture  of  Philadelphia,  Baltimore  and 
Washington  might  lead  to  an  arrangement  by  which  the 
Confederacy  would  be  recognized,  or  a  restoration  of  the 
Union  secured  upon  a  basis  acceptable  to  the  South.     A 


258  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

desperate  undertaking,  no  doubt,  but  it  is  difficult  to  suggest 
a  more  adequate  reason  for  the  conduct  of  General  Lee. 

I  cannot,  as  a  civilian,  assume  to  give  a  judgment  which 
shall  be  accepted  by  any  one,  upon  the  relative  standing  of 
military  men;  but  I  cannot  accept,  without  question,  the  de- 
cision of  a  military  man  who  never  won  a  great  victory  in 
a  great  battle,,  upon  a  chieftain  who  fought  many  great  bat- 
tles and  never  lost  one. 

I  end  my  observations  upon  General  Grant  as  a  soldier 
by  the  relation  of  an  incident  in  my  acquaintance  with  Gen- 
eral Sherman,  which  was  intimate  during  the  four  years  that 
I  was  at  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department. 

It  was  my  custom  in  those  years  to  spend  evenings  at  Gen- 
eral Sherman's,  where  we  indulged  ourselves  in  conversa- 
tion and  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  game  of  billiards.  Our 
conversations  were  chiefly  upon  the  war.  In  those  conver- 
sations General  Grant's  name  and  doings  were  the  topics 
often.  General  Sherman  never  instituted  a  comparison  be- 
tween General  Grant  and  any  one  else,  nor  did  he  ever  ex- 
press an  opinion  of  General  Grant  as  a  military  leader;  but 
his  conversation  always  assumed  that  General  Grant  was 
superior  to  every  other  officer,  himself.  General  Sherman, 
included. 

In  concurrence  with  the  opinion  of  General  Sherman  the 
friends  of  General  Grant  may  call  an  array  of  witnesses  who, 
both  from  numbers  and  character,  are  entitled  to  large  con- 
fidence. 

During  the  four  years  of  the  Civil  War  more  than  two 
million  men  served  in  the  Northern  Army.  Many  of  them, 
more  than  a  majority  of  them,  probably,  served  for  at  least 
three  years  each.  With  an  unanimity  that  was  never  dis- 
turbed by  an  audible  voice  of  dissent,  the  two  million  vet- 
erans gave  to  General  Grant  supremacy  over  all  the  other 
officers  under  whom  they  had  served.     With  like  unanimity 


REMINISCENCES  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  259 

the  chief  officers  of  the  army  assigned  the  first  place  to 
General  Grant,  and  never  in  any  other  war  of  modern  times 
has  there  been  equal  opportunity  for  the  application  of  a 
satisfactory  test  to  leaders.  In  all  the  wars  in  which  Eng- 
land has  been  engaged  since  the  fall  of  Napoleon,  except, 
possibly,  the  Crimean  War,  the  opposing  forces  have  been 
composed  of  inferior  races  of  men.  The  fields  of  contest 
have  been  in  India,  Egypt  and  South  Africa.  From  such 
contests  no  satisfactory  opinion  can  be  formed  as  to  the 
qualities  of  the  leaders  of  the  victorious  forces. 

In  our  Civil  War  the  men  and  the  officers  were  of  the 
same  race  in  the  main,  and  the  educated  officers  had  been 
alike  trained  at  West  Point.  Except  in  numbers,  the  armies  of 
the  North  and  the  South  were  upon  an  equality,  and  in  all  the 
great  contests,  the  numbers  engaged  were  equal  substantially. 
The  quality  of  the  men  and  officers  may  be  gauged  and 
measured  with  accuracy  from  the  fact  that  at  Shiloh,  in 
the  Wilderness  and  at  Gettysburg  the  same  fields  were  con- 
tested for  two  and  three  continuous  days.  It  has  been  said 
of  Mr.  Adams  that  when  an  English  sympathizer  with  the 
South  lauded  the  bravery  of  the  Southern  Army,  Mr.  Adams 
replied :  "  Yes,  they  are  brave  men ;  they  are  my  country- 
men." 

The  Southern  Army  was  composed  of  brave  men  and  its 
officers  were  qualified  by  training  and  experience  to  com- 
mand any  army  and  to  contest  for  supremacy  on  any  field. 

My  readers  should  not  assume  that  I  have  avoided  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  characteristics  of  General  Grant  in  his  per- 
sonality and  as  a  civil  magistrate. 

The  voice  of  those  who  in  1872  denied  his  ability  and 
questioned  his  integrity  is  no  longer  heard;  but  there  are 
those  at  home  and  abroad  who  either  teach  or  accept  the 
notion  that  General  Grant  has  become  great  historically  by 
having  been  the  favorite  of  fortune. 


XL 

BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  AND  THE  REPUB- 
LICAN CONVENTION  OF   1880 

THE  controversy  between  Mr.  Blaine  and  Mr.  Conkling 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the 
Thirty-ninth    Congress   was    fraught   with    serious 
consequences  to  the  contestants,  and  it  may  have  changed  the 
fortunes  of  the  RepubHcan  Party. 

Mr.  Conkling  was  a  member  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Con- 
gress, but  he  was  defeated  as  a  candidate  for  the  Thirty- 
eighth.  He  was  returned  for  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress. 
During  the  term  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  he  was  com- 
missioned by  the  Department  of  War  as  judge-advocate, 
and  assigned  for  duty  to  the  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock 
and  the  trial  of  certain  soldiers  known  as  "  bounty  jumpers." 
That  duty  he  performed. 

When  the  army  bill  was  before  the  House  in  April,  1866, 
Mr.  Conkling  moved  to  strike  out  the  section  which  made 
an  appropriation  for  the  support  of  the  provost-marshal- 
general.  General  Grant,  then  in  command  of  the  army, 
had  given  an  opinion,  in  a  letter  dated  March  19,  1866,  that 
that  office  in  the  War  Department  was  an  unnecessary  office. 
Mr.  Conkling  supported  his  motion  in  a  speech  in  which  he 
said :  "  My  objection  to  this  section  is  that  it  creates  an 
unnecessary  office  for  an  undeserving  public  servant;  it 
fastens,  as  an  incubus  upon  the  country,  a  hateful  instru- 
ment of  war,  which  deserves  no  place  in  a  free  government 
in  a  time  of  peace." 

260 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  261 

Thus  Mr.  Conkling  not  only  assailed  the  office,  he  assailed 
the  officer,  and  in  a  manner  calculated  to  kindle  resentment, 
especially  in  an  officer  of  high  rank.  General  James  B.  Fry 
was  provost-marshal-general.  He  was  able  to  command 
the  friendship  of  Mr,  Blaine,  and  on  the  thirtieth  day  of 
April,  Mr,  Blaine  read  from  his  seat  in  the  House  a  letter 
from  General  Fry  addressed  to  himself.  Thus  Mr.  Blaine 
endorsed  the  contents  of  the  letter. 

In  that  letter  General  Fry  made  three  specific  charges 
against  Mr,  Conkling,  but  he  made  no  answer  to  the  arraign- 
ment that  Mr.  Conkling  had  made  of  him  and  of  his  office. 
Thus  he  avoided  the  issue  that  Mr.  Conkling  had  raised. 
His  charges  were  these: 

T.  That  Mr,  Conkling  had  received  a  fee  for  the  prose- 
cution of  Major  Haddock,  and  that  the  same  had  been 
received  improperly,  if  not  illegally. 

2,  That  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  he  had  not  acted 
in  good  faith,  and  that  he  had  been  zealous  in  preventing  the 
prosecution  of  deserters  at  Utica, 

3,  That  he  had  notified  the  War  Department  that  the 
Provost-Marshal  in  Western  New  York  needed  legal  advice, 
and  that  thereupon  he  received  an  appointment. 

The  fourth  charge  was  an  inference,  and  it  fell  with  the 
allegation. 

Upon  the  reading  of  the  letter  a  debate  arose  which  fell 
below  any  recognized  standard  of  Congressional  contro- 
versy and  which  rendered  a  reconciliation  impossible. 

At  that  time  my  relations  to  Mr.  Conkling  were  not  inti- 
mate, and  I  am  now  puzzled  when  I  ask  myself  the  question : 
"  Why  did  Mr.  Conkling  invite  my  opinion  as  to  his  further 
action  in  the  matter?  "  That  he  did,  however;  and  I  advised 
him  to  ask  for  a  committee.  A  committee  of  five  was 
appointed,  three  Republicans  and  two  Democrats.  Mr.  Shell- 
abarger  was  chairman,  and  Mr.  Windom  was  a  member. 


262  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

The  report  was  a  unanimous  report.  The  committee  criti- 
cised the  practice  of  reading  letters  in  the  House,  which 
reflected  upon  the  House,  or  upon  the  acts  or  speeches  of  any 
member. 

At  considerable  length  of  statement  and  remarks,  the  com- 
mittee exonerated  Mr.  Conkling  from  each  and  every  one  of 
the  charges,  and,  with  emphasis,  the  proceedings  on  the  part 
of  General  Fry  were  condemned.  The  most  important  of  the 
resolutions  reported  by  the  committee  was  in  these  words : 

Resolved,  That  all  the  statements  contained  in  the  letter 
of  General  James  B.  Fry  to  Hon.  James  G.  Blaine,  a  member 
of  this  House,  bearing  date  the  27th  of  April,  a.  d.  1866,  and 
which  was  read  in  this  House  the  30th  day  of  April,  a.  d.  1866, 
in  so  far  as  such  statements  impute  to  the  Hon.  Roscoe  Conk- 
ling, a  member  of  this  House,  any  criminal,  illegal,  un- 
patriotic, or  otherwise  improper  conduct,  or  motives,  either 
as  to  the  matter  of  his  procuring  himself  to  be  employed  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  the  prosecution  of 
military  offences  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in  the  manage- 
ment of  such  prosecutions,  in  taking  compensation  therefor, 
or  in  any  other  charge,  are  wholly  without  foundation  truth, 
and  for  their  publication  there  were,  in  the  judgment  of  this 
House,  no  facts  connected  with  said  prosecutions  furnishing 
either  a  palliative  or  an  excuse. 

The  controversy  thus  opened  came  to  an  end  only  with 
Mr.  Conkling's  death.  It  is  not  known  to  me  that  Mr. 
Conkling  and  Mr.  Blaine  were  unfriendly  previous  to  the 
encounter  of  April,  1866.  That  they  could  have  lived  on 
terms  of  intimacy,  or  even  of  ordinary  friendship,  is  not 
probable.  Yet  it  may  not  be  easy  to  assign  a  reason  for 
such  an  estrangement  unless  it  may  be  found  in  the  word  in- 
compatibility.    My  relations  with  Mr.  Blaine  were  friendly. 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  263 

reserved,  and  as  to  his  aspirations  for  the  Presidency,  it  was 
well  understood  by  him  that  I  could  not  be  counted  among 
his  original  supporters. 

Only  on  one  occasion  was  the  subject  ever  mentioned. 
About  two  weeks  before  the  Republican  Convention  of  1884, 
I  met  Mr.  Blaine  in  Lafayette  Square.  He  beckoned  me  to  a 
seat  on  a  bench.  He  opened  the  conversation  by  saying  that 
he  was  glad  to  have  some  votes  in  the  convention,  but  that 
he  did  not  wish  for  the  nomination.  He  expressed  a  wish  to 
defeat  the  nomination  of  President  Arthur,  and  he  then  said 
the  ticket  should  be  General  Sherman  and  Robert  Lincoln. 
Most  assuredly  the  nomination  of  that  ticket  would  have 
been  followed  by  an  election.  To  me  General  Sherman  had 
one  answer  to  the  suggestion:  "  I  am  not  a  statesman;  my 
brother  John  is.  If  any  Sherman  is  to  be  nominated,  he  is 
the  man." 

I  did  not  then  question,  nor  do  I  now  question,  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  statement  that  Mr.  Blaine  then  made.  My 
acquaintance  with  Mr.  Blaine  began  with  our  election  to 
the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  and  it  continued  on  terms  of 
reserved  friendship  to  the  end  of  his  life.  That  reserve 
was  not  due  to  any  defect  in  his  character  of  which  I  had 
knowledge,  nor  to  the  statements  concerning  him  that  were 
made  by  others,  but  to  an  opinion  that  he  was  not  a  person 
whose  candidacy  I  was  willing  to  espouse  in  advance  of 
his  nomination.  I  ought  to  say  that  in  my  intercourse 
with  Mr.  Blaine  he  was  frank  and  free  from  dissimula- 
tion. 

I  was  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  Mr.  Conkling  from  the 
disastrous  April,  1866,  to  the  end  of  his  life.  Hence  it  was 
that  I  ventured  upon  an  experiment  which  a  less  well-assured 
friend  would  have  avoided.  I  assumed  that  Mr.  Blaine  would 
close  the  controversy  at  the  first  opportunity.  It  may  be 
said  of  Mr.  Blaine  that,  while  he  had  great  facility  for  get- 


264  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ting  into  difficulties,  he  had  also  a  strong  desire  to  get  out 
of  difficulties,  and  great  capacity  for  the  accomplishment  of 
his  purposes  in  that  direction. 

On  a  time,  and  years  previous  to  1880,  I  put  the  matter 
before  Mr.  Conkling,  briefly,  upon  personal  grounds,  and 
upon  public  grounds  in  a  party  sense.  He  received  the  sug- 
gestion without  any  manifestation  of  feeling,  and  with  great 
candor  he  said :  "  That  attack  was  made  without  any  provo- 
cation by  me  as  against  Mr.  Blaine,  and  when  I  was  suffering 
more  from  other  causes  than  I  ever  suffered  at  any  other  time, 
and  I  shall  never  overlook  it." 

General  Grant's  strength  was  so  overmastering  in  1868 
and  1872  that  the  controversy  between  Blaine  and  Conkling 
was  of  no  importance  to  the  Republican  Party.  The  disap- 
pearance of  the  political  influence  of  General  Grant  in  1876 
revived  the  controversy  within  the  Republican  Party,  and 
made  the  nomination  of  either  Blaine  or  Conkling  an  impos- 
sibility. Its  evil  influence  extended  to  the  election,  and  it  put 
in  jeopardy  the  success  of  General  Hayes.  At  the  end,  Mr. 
Conkling  did  not  accept  the  judgment  of  the  Electoral  Com- 
mission as  a  just  judgment,  and  he  declined  to  vote  for  its 
affirmation. 

I  urged  Mr.  Conkling  to  sustain  the  action  of  the  com- 
mission, and  upon  the  ground  that  we  had  taken  full  respon- 
sibility when  we  agreed  to  the  reference  and  that  there  was 
then  no  alternative  open  to  us.  I  did  not  attempt  to  solve  the 
problem  of  the  election  of  1876  either  upon  ethical  or  political 
grounds.  The  evidence  was  more  conclusive  than  satisfac- 
tory that  there  had  been  wrong-doing  in  New  York,  in  Ore- 
gon, in  New  Orleans,  and  not  unlikely  in  many  other  places. 
As  a  measure  of  peace,  when  ascertained  justice  had  become 
an  impossibility,  I  was  ready  to  accept  the  report  of  the 
commission,  whether  it  gave  the  Presidency  to  General 
Hayes  or  to  Mr.  Tilden.     The  circumstances  were  such  that 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  265 

success  before  the  commission  did  not  promise  any  advan- 
tage to  the  successful  party. 

For  the  moment,  I  pass  by  the  Convention  of  1880  and  the 
events  of  the  following  year.  In  the  year  1884  Mr.  Conkling 
was  in  the  practice  of  his  profession  and  enjoying  therefrom 
larger  emoluments,  through  a  series  of  years,  than  were  ever 
enjoyed  by  any  other  niember  of  the  American  bar.  He 
once  said  to  me :  "  My  father  would  denounce  me  if  he  knew 
what  charges  I  am  making."  That  conjecture  may  have 
been  well  founded,  for  the  father  would  not  have  been  the 
outcome  of  the  period  in  which  the  son  was  living.  The 
father  was  an  austere  country  judge,  largely  destitute  of 
the  rich  equipment  for  the  profession  for  which  the  son  was 
distinguished.  After  the  year  1881,  when  Mr.  Conkling 
gave  himself  wholly  to  the  profession,  Mr.  Justice  Miller 
made  this  remark  to  me:  "For  the  discussion  of  the  law 
and  the  facts  of  a  case  Mr.  Conkling  is  the  best  lawyer  who 
comes  into  our  court." 

If  this  estimate  was  trustworthy,  then  Mr.  Conkling's 
misgivings  as  to  his  charges  may  have  been  groundless.  If 
a  rich  man,  whose  property  is  in  peril,  whose  liberty  is 
assailed,  or  whose  reputation  is  threatened,  will  seek  the 
advice  and  aid  of  the  leading  advocate  of  the  city,  state,  or 
country,  shall  not  the  compensation  be  commensurate  with 
the  stake  that  has  been  set  up?  Is  it  to  be  measured  by  the 
per  diem  time  pay  of  ordinary  men  ? 

Whatever  may  have  been  Mr.  Conkling's  pecuniary  inter- 
ests or  professional  engagements  in  the  year  1884,  he  found 
time  to  take  a  quiet  part  in  the  contest  of  that  year,  and  to 
contribute  to  Mr.  Blaine's  defeat. 

In  the  month  of  November,  and  after  the  election,  I  had 
occasion  to  pass  a  Sunday  in  New  York.  It  happened,  and 
by  accident,  that  I  met  Mr.  Conkling  on  Fifth  Avenue. 
After  the  formalities,  he  invited  me  to  call  with  him  upon 


266  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Mr.  William  K.  Vanderbilt.  Mr.  Vanderbilt  was  absent 
when  we  called.  Upon  his  return,  the  election  was  the  topic 
of  conversation.  Mr.  Vanderbilt  said  that  he  voted  for 
Garfield  in  1880,  but  that  he  had  not  voted  for  Blaine.  Mr. 
Conkling  expressed  his  regret  that  Mr.  Blaine  had  come  so 
near  a  success,  and  he  attributed  it  to  the  fact  that  he  had 
not  anticipated  the  support  which  had  been  given  to  Blaine 
by  the  Democratic  Party. 

On  a  time  in  the  conversation  Mr.  Conkling  said :  "  Mr. 
Vanderbilt,  why  did  you  sell  Maud  S.  ?  " 

Mr.  Vanderbilt  proceeded  to  give  reasons.  He  had  re- 
ceived letters  from  strangers  inquiring  about  her  pedigree, 
care,  age,  treatment,  etc.,  which  he  could  not  answer  without 
more  labor  than  he  was  willing  to  perform.  As  a  final 
reason,  he  said :  "  When  I  drive  up  Broadway,  people  do  not 
say,  '  There  goes  Vanderbilt,'  but  they  say,  '  There  goes 
Maud  S.'  " 

When  General  Grant  was  on  his  journey  around  the  world 
I  wrote  him  a  letter  occasionally,  and  occasionally  I  received 
a  letter  in  reply.  In  two  of  my  letters  I  mentioned  as  a 
fact  what  I  then  thought  to  be  the  truth,  that  there  was  a 
very  considerable  public  opinion  in  favor  of  his  nomination 
for  President  in  1880,  and  that  upon  his  return  to  the  country 
some  definite  action  on  his  part  might  be  required.  Upon 
a  recent  examination  of  his  letters,  I  find  that  they  are  free 
from  any  reference  to  the  Presidency.  If  Mr.  Conkling, 
General  Logan,  Mr.  Cameron,  and  myself  came  to  be  con- 
sidered the  special  representatives  of  General  Grant  at  the 
Chicago  Convention  of  1880,  the  circumstance  was  not  due 
to  any  designation  by  him  prior  to  the  Galena  letter,  of 
which  I  am  to  speak  and  which  was  written  while  the 
convention  was  in  session,  and  when  the  contest  between 
the  contending  parties  was  far  advanced. 

Our  title  was  derived  from  the  constant  support  that  we 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  267 

had  given  him  through  many  years  and  from  his  constant 
friendship  for  us  through  the  same  many  years.  We  were 
of  the  opinion  then,  and  in  that  belief  we  never  faltered, 
that  the  nomination  and  election  of  General  Grant  were  the 
best  security  that  could  be  had  for  the  peace  and  prosperity 
of  the  country.  That  opinion  was  supported  by  an  expressed 
public  sentiment  in  the  conventions  of  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Illinois,  and  in  other  parts  of  the  country  there 
were  evidences  of  a  disposition  in  the  body  of  the  people 
to  support  General  Grant  in  numbers  far  in  excess  of  the 
strength  of  the  Republican  Party. 

The  mass  of  the  people  were  not  disturbed  by  the  thought 
that  General  Grant  might  become  President  a  third  time. 
They  did  not  accept  the  absurd  notion  that  experience, 
successful  experience,  disqualified  a  man  for  further  service. 
Nor  did  that  apprehension  influence  any  considerable  num- 
ber of  the  leaders.  They  demanded  a  transfer  of  power 
into  new  hands.  This,  unquestionably,  was  their  right,  and 
as  a  majority  of  the  convention,  as  the  convention  was  con- 
stituted finally,  they  were  able  to  assert  and  to  maintain  their 
supremacy. 

It  is  too  late  for  complaints,  and  complaints  were  vain 
when  the  causes  were  transpiring,  but  there  were  delegates 
who  appeared  in  the  convention  as  the  opponents  of  General 
Grant  who  had  been  elected  upon  the  understanding  that 
they  were  his  friends.  Upon  this  fact  I  hang  a  single  obser- 
vation. If  there  is  a  trust  in  human  affairs  that  should  be 
treated  as  a  sacred  trust  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  duty  that 
arises  from  the  acceptance  of  a  representative  office  in  mat- 
ters of  government.  When  a  public  opinion  has  been  formed, 
either  in  regard  to  men  or  to  measures,  whoever  undertakes 
to  represent  that  opinion  should  do  so  in  good  faith. 

To  this  rule  there  were  many  exceptions  in  the  Republican 
Convention  of  1880,  and  it  was  no  slight  evidence  of  devo- 


268  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

tion  to  the  party  and  to  the  country  when  General  Grant 
and  Mr.  ConkHng  entered  actively  into  the  contest  after  the 
fortunes  of  the  party  had  been  prostrated,  apparently,  by 
the  disaster  in  the  State  of  Maine. 

Of  the  many  incidents  of  the  convention  no  one  is  more 
worthy  of  notice  than  the  speech  of  Mr.  Conkling  when  he 
placed  General  Grant  in  nomination.  Whatever  he  said 
that  was  in  support  of  his  cause,  affirmatively,  was  of  the 
highest  order  of  dramatic  eloquence.  When  he  dealt  with 
his  opponents,  his  speech  was  not  advanced  in  quality  and 
its  influence  was  diminished.  His  reference  in  his  opening 
sentence  to  his  associates  who  had  deserted  General  Grant: 
"  In  obedience  to  instructions  which  I  should  never  dare  to 
disregard,"  was  tolerated  even  by  his  enemies;  but  his  allu- 
sion to  Mr.,  Blaine  in  these  words :  "  without  patronage, 
without  emissaries,  without  committees,  without  bureaus, 
without  telegraph  wires  running  from  his  house  to  this  con- 
vention, or  running  from  his  house  anywhere,"  intensified 
the  opposition  to  General  Grant. 

In  many  particulars  his  speech  is  an  unequaled  analysis 
of  General  Grant's  character  and  career,  presented  in  a  most 
attractive  form.  An  extract  may  be  tolerated  from  a  speech 
that  can  be  read  with  interest  even  by  those  who  are  igno- 
rant of  the  doings,  or  it  may  be,  by  those  who  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  existence,  of  the  convention: 

"  Standing  on  the  highest  eminence  of  human  distinction, 
modest,  firm,  simple,  and  self-poised,  having  filled  all  lands 
with  his  renown,  he  has  seen  not  only  the  high-born  and  the 
titled,  but  the  poor  and  the  lowly,  in  the  uttermost  ends  of 
the  earth,  rise  and  uncover  before  him." 

Mr.  Conkling  was  the  recognized  leader  of  the  three  hun- 
dred and  six  who  constituted  the  compact  body  of  the  sup- 
porters of  General  Grant. 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  269 

Suggestions  were  made  that  the  substitution  of  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's  name  for  General  Grant's  name  would  give  the  nomi- 
nation to  Mr.  Conkling,  and  there  was  a  moment  of  time 
when  General  Garfield  anticipated  or  apprehended  such  a 
result.  There  was,  however,  never  a  moment  of  time  when 
such  a  result  was  possible.  The  three  hundred  and  six 
would  never  have  consented  to  the  use  of  any  name  in 
place  of  General  Grant's  name  unless  General  Grant's  name 
were  first  withdrawn  by  his  authority. 

A  firmer  obstacle  even  would  have  been  found  in  Mr. 
Conkling's  sturdy  refusal  to  allow  the  use  of  his  name  under 
such  circumstances.  Among  the  friends  of  General  Grant 
the  thought  of  such  a  proceeding  was  never  entertained, 
although  the  suggestion  was  made,  but  without  authority, 
probably,  from  those  charged  with  the  management  of  the 
organizations  engaged  in  the  struggle. 

After  many  years  had  passed,  and  the  proceedings  of  the 
convention  were  well-nigh  forgotten,  Mr.  John  Russell 
Young  printed  a  letter  in  which  he  made  the  charge  that 
Conkling,  Cameron,  Boutwell,  and  Lincoln  had  concealed 
the  contents  of  a  letter  from  General  Grant  in  which  he 
directed  them  as  his  representatives  to  withdraw  his  name 
from  the  convention.  Mr.  Young  was  in  error  in  two  par- 
ticulars. Lincoln  was  not  named  in  the  letter.  General 
Logan  was  the  fourth  person  to  whom  the  letter  was  ad- 
dressed. 

Young  brought  the  letter  from  Galena,  where  Grant  then 
was,  and  he  claims  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  himself. 
General  Frederick  D.  Grant,  who  was  then  at  Chicago, 
claims  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  him,  and  that,  after 
reading  it,  he  handed  it  to  Mr.  Conkling. 

As  late  as  the  first  half  of  the  year  1897,  Mr.  Conkling's 
papers  had  not  been  examined  carefully.  The  contents  of 
the  letter  are  important,  and  for  the  present  the  evidence  is 


270  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

circumstantial;  but  to  me  it  is  conclusive  against  Mr.  Young's 
statement  that  Conkling,  Cameron,  Logan,  and  Boutwell 
were  directed  by  General  Grant  to  withdraw  his  name  from 
the  convention.  I  cannot  now  say  that  I  read  the  letter,  but 
of  its  receipt  and  the  contents  I  had  full  knowledge,  and  I 
referred  to  it  in  these  words  in  a  letter  to  my  daughter  dated 
May  31,  1880: 

"  Grant  sent  for  Young  to  visit  him  at  Galena.  Young 
returned  to-day,  and  says  that  Grant  directed  him  to  say  to 
Cameron,  Logan,  Conkling,  and  Boutwell  that  he  should  be 
satisfied  with  whatever  they  may  do." 

Without  any  special  recollection  upon  the  point,  the  con- 
clusion of  reason  is  that  my  letter  was  written  from  a  con- 
versation with  Young,  and  before  I  had  knowledge  of  the 
contents  of  Grant's  letter.  I  may  add,  however,  that  his 
letter  produced  no  change  in  my  opinion  as  to  our  authority 
and  duty  in  regard  to  Grant's  candidacy.  My  mind  never 
departed  for  a  moment  from  the  idea  that  we  were  free, 
entirely  free,  to  continue  the  contest  in  behalf  of  General 
Grant  upon  our  own  judgment. 

Upon  the  views  and  facts  already  presented  and  with  even 
greater  certainty  upon  the  correspondence  with  General  Fred- 
erick D.  Grant,  I  submit  as  the  necessary  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter  that  the  letter  of  General  Grant  of  May,  1880, 
did  not  contain  any  specific  instructions,  and  especially  that 
it  did  not  contain  instructions  for  the  withdrawal  of  his 
name  from  the  convention;  in  fine,  that  the  further  conduct 
of  the  contest  was  left  to  the  discretion  and  judgment  of  the 
four  men  whom  he  had  recognized  as  his  representatives. 

I  annex  the  correspondence  with  General  Frederick  D. 
Grant : 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  271 

Boston,  Mass.,  May  28,  1897. 
Col.  Fred.  D.  Grant,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir:  You  will  of  course  recall  the  fact  that  John 
Russell  Young,  some  months  ago,  made  a  public  statement 
in  which  he  declared  that  he  brought  from  Galena  to  Chicago, 
during  the  session  of  the  Republican  Convention  of  1880,  a 
letter  from  General  Grant  in  which  he  gave  specific  directions 
to  Conkling,  Cameron,  and  Boutwell  to  withdraw  his  name 
as  a  candidate  from  the  convention.  Some  months  ago  I  had 
some  correspondence  with  A.  R.  Conkling,  and  also  with 
yourself,  in  regard  to  the  contents  of  the  letter  written  by 
General  Grant.  Mr.  A.  R.  Conkling  sent  me  a  copy  of  a 
portion  of  a  letter  which,  as  he  advised  me,  he  had  received 
from  you.  A  copy  of  that  extract  I  herewith  enclose.  As 
one  of  the  friends  of  General  Grant  and  as  one  of  the  persons 
to  whom  bad  faith  was  imputed  by  Mr.  Young,  it  is  my 
purpose  to  place  the  matter  before  the  public  with  such 
evidence  as  I  can  command,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
character  of  the  letter. 

I  wish  to  obtain  from  you  such  a  statement  as  you  are 
willing  to  make,  with  the  understanding  that  whenever  the 
case  shall  be  presented  to  the  public  your  letter  may  be  used. 

Aside  from  actual  evidence  tending  to  show  that  Young's 
statement  is  erroneous,  I  cannot  believe  that  General  Grant 
would  have  recognized  as  a  friend  either  one  of  the  persons 
named,  if  his  explicit  instructions  for  the  withdrawal  of  his 
name  had  been  made  by  him  and  disregarded  by  them. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Geo.  S.  Boutwell. 

25  East  620  Street, 
New  York,  May  30,  1897. 

My  Dear  Senator:  I  received  yesterday  your  letter  of  May 
28th,  in  which  you  asked  me  what  I  remember  about  a  letter 


272  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

which  my  father,  General  Grant,  wrote  to  his  four  leading 
friends  during  the  session  of  the  Republican  National  Con- 
vention at  Chicago  in  1880. 

With  reference  to  this  matter  my  recollection  is,  that  Mr. 
John  Russell  Young,  who  had  been  visiting  father  in  Galena, 
brought  from  him  a  large  sealed  envelope,  which  he  deliv- 
ered to  me  at  my  home  in  Chicago,  with  directions  from  my 
father  that  I  should  read  the  letter  contained  therein,  and 
then  see  that  it  was  received  safely  by  his  four  friends, 
Senators  Conkling,  Boutwell,  Cameron,  and  Logan. 

The  substance  of  General  Grant's  letter  was,  that  the  per- 
sonal feelings  of  partisans  of  the  leading  candidates  had 
grown  to  be  so  bitter,  that  it  might  become  advisable  for  the 
good  of  the  Republican  Party  to  select  as  their  candidate 
some  one  whose  name  had  not  yet  been  prominently  before 
the  convention,  and  that  he  therefore  wrote  to  say  to  those 
who  represented  his  interest  in  the  convention,  that  it  would 
be  quite  satisfactory  to  him  if  they  would  confer  with  those 
who  represented  the  interests  of  Mr.  Blaine  and  decided  to 
have  both  his  name  and  Mr.  Blaine's  withdrawn  from  before 
the  convention. 

I  delivered  in  person  this  letter  from  my  father,  to  Senator 
Conkling — I  do  not  know  what  disposition  he  made  of  it. 

With  highest  regards,  my  dear  Senator,  for  your  family 
and  yourself,  believe  me,  as  ever, 

Faithfully  yours, 

Frederick  D.  Grant. 

Following  the  visit  of  General  Grant  and  Mr.  Conkling  to 
Mentor  in  the  autumn  of  1880.  I  was  informed  by  Mr. 
Conkling  that  he  had  not  been  alone  one  minute  with  General 
Garfield,  intending  by  that  care-taking  to  avoid  the  suggestion 
that  his  visit  was  designed  to  afford  an  opportunity  for  any 
personal  or  party  arrangement.     Further,  it  was  the  wish 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  273 

of  General  Grant,  as  it  was  his  wish,  that  the  effort  which 
they  were  then  making  should  be  treated  as  a  service  due 
to  the  party  and  to  the  country,  and  that  General  Garfield 
should  be  left  free  from  any  obligation  to  them  whatsoever. 

After  the  election  and  after  Mr.  Blaine  became  Secretary 
of  State,  he  volunteered  to  speak  of  the  situation  of  the 
party  in  New  York  and  of  Mr.  Conkling's  standing  in  the 
State.  Among  other  things,  he  said  that  Mr.  Conkling  was 
the  only  man  who  had  had  three  elections  to  the  Senate,  and 
that  Mr.  Conkling  and  his  friends  would  be  considered  fairly 
in  the  appointments  that  might  be  made  in  that  State. 

When  in  a  conversation  with  Conkling,  I  mentioned 
Blaine's  remark,  he  said,  "  Do  you  believe  one  word  of 
that?" 

I  said,  "  Yes,  I  believe  Mr.  Blaine." 

He  said  with  emphasis,  "  I  don't." 

Subsequent  events  strengthened  Mr.  Conkling  in  his  opin- 
ion, but  those  events  did  not  change  my  opinion  of  Mr. 
Blaine's  integrity  of  purpose  in  the  conversations  of  which  I 
have  spoken. 

My  knowledge  of  the  events,  not  important  in  themselves, 
but  which  seem  to  have  the  relation  of  a  prelude  to  the  great 
tragedy,  was  derived  from  three  persons,  Mr.  Conkling,  Mr. 
Blaine,  and  Mr.  Marshall  Jewell.  At  the  request  of  the 
President,  Mr.  Conkling  called  upon  him  the  Sunday  pre- 
ceding the  day  of  catastrophe.  The  President  gave  Mr. 
Conkling  the  names  of  persons  that  he  was  considering 
favorably  for  certain  places.  To  several  of  these  Mr.  Conk- 
ling made  objections,  and  in  some  cases  other  persons  were 
named.  As  Mr.  Conkling  was  leaving  he  said,  "  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, what  do  you  propose  about  the  collectorship  of  New 
York?  "  The  President  said,  "  We  will  leave  that  for  another 
time."    These  statements  I  received  from  Mr.  Conkling. 

From  Mr.  Jewell  I  received  the  following  statement  as 


2  74  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

coming  from  the  President:  When  the  New  York  nomina- 
tions were  sent  to  the  Senate,  the  President  was  forthwith 
in  the  receipt  of  letters  and  despatches  in  protest,  coupled  with 
the  suggestion  that  everything  had  been  surrendered  to  Conk- 
ling.  Without  delay  and  without  consultation  with  any  one, 
the  President  nominated  Judge  Robertson  to  the  office  of 
collector  of  New  York.  Further,  the  President  said,  as 
reported  by  Mr.  Jewell,  Mr.  Blaine  heard  of  the  nomination, 
and  he  came  in  very  pale  and  much  astonished. 

From  Mr.  Blaine  I  received  the  specific  statement  that  he 
had  no  knowledge  of  the  nomination  of  Judge  Robertson 
until  it  had  been  made. 

These  statements  are  reconcilable  with  each  other,  and 
they  place  the  responsibility  for  the  sudden  and  fatal  rupture 
of  the  relations  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  the  President 
upon  the  President.  Mr.  Conkling  could  not  fail  to  regard 
the  nomination  of  Robertson  as  a  wilful  and  premeditated 
violation  of  the  pledge  given  at  the  Sunday  conference.  It 
was,  however,  only  an  instance  of  General  Garfield's  impul- 
sive and  unreasoning  submission  to  an  expression  of  public 
opinion,  without  waiting  for  evidence  of  the  nature  and 
value  of  that  opinion.  That  weakness  had  been  observed  by 
his  associates  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  on  that 
weakness  his  administration  was  wrecked. 

Mr.  Conkling  was  much  misrepresented  and  of  course  he 
was  much  misunderstood.  As  a  Senator  from  New  York 
he  claimed  a  right  to  be  consulted  in  regard  to  the  principal 
appointments  in  the  State.  His  recommendations  were  few 
and  they  were  made  with  great  care.  He  confined  himself  to 
the  chief  appointments.  It  was  quite  difficult  to  secure  his 
name  or  his  favorable  word  in  behalf  of  applicants  for  the 
subordinate  places. 

In  my  experience  with  him,  which  was  considerable  in  the 
Internal  Revenue  Office  and  in  the  Treasury,  I  found  him 


BLAINE  AND  CONKLING  275 

ready  to  concede  to  the  opinions  of  the  Executive  Department. 
He  was  one  of  those  who  held  to  the  opinion  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  Representatives  and  Senators  to  give  advice  in  regard 
to  appointments  and  to  give  it  upon  their  responsibility  as 
members  of  the  Government.  Senators  and  Representatives 
are  not  officers  of  the  Government,  they  are  members  of  the 
Government,  and  the  duty  of  giving  aid  to  the  administration 
rests  upon  them. 

When  a  man  is  chosen  to  represent  a  State  or  a  district,  a 
presumption  should  arise  that  he  will  act  for  the  good  of  the 
country  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  Advice  in  regard  to  appoint- 
ments is  a  part  of  his  duty,  and  in  the  main  the  Senators  and 
Representatives  are  worthy  of  confidence.  The  present  Civil 
Service  system  rests  upon  the  theory  that  they  are  not  to  be 
trusted  and  that  three  men  without  a  constituency  are  safer 
custodians  of  power. 

Upon  the  death  of  Garfield  and  the  accession  of  Arthur, 
Mr.  Conkling  looked  for  one  thing,  and  one  thing  only — the 
removal  of  Robertson.  When  this  was  not  done  he  separated 
from  Arthur.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  reasons  which 
governed  the  President,  but  I  think  his  career  would  have 
been  more  agreeable  to  himself  if  he  had  so  far  vindicated  his 
own  course  and  the  course  of  his  friends  as  to  have  removed 
from  ofiice  the  man  who  had  contributed  so  largely  to  the 
defeat  of  the  wing  of  the  Republican  Party  with  which  Mr. 
Arthur  was  identified. 

When  General  Garfield  died,  the  Republican  Party  was 
broken,  and  it  seemed  to  be  without  hope.  President  Ar- 
thur's conciliatory  policy  did  much  to  restore  harmony  of  all 
the  elements  except  the  wing  represented  by  Mr.  Conkling. 

It  is  probable,  however,  that  a  better  result  might  have 
been  secured  by  the  early  removal  of  Robertson.  That  course 
of  action  would  have  been  satisfactory  to  Conkling,  and  given 
strength  to  the  party  in  New  York,  where  strength  was  most 


276  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

needed.  With  Mr.  Conkling's  aid  in  1884,  Mr.  Arthur  might 
have  been  nominated,  and  if  nominated  it  is  probable  that  he 
might  have  been  elected  with  Mr.  Conkling's  aid.  Arthur's 
error  was  that  he  offended  two  important  factions  of  the 
party.  By  retaining  Robertson  he  alienated  Conkling,  and 
by  the  removal  of  Blaine  he  alienated  him  and  his  friends. 
Hence  in  1884  two  elements  of  the  party  that  were  bitterly 
opposed  to  each  other  harmonized  in  their  opposition  to  Ar- 
thur. 


XLI 

FROM   1875  TO  1895 

THE    HAWAIIAN    TREATY   AND    RECIPROCITY 

IN  January,  1875,  Mr.  Fish  negotiated  a  treaty  with  the 
representatives  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  by  which  there 
was  to  be  a  free  exchange  of  specified  products  and 
manufactures. 

By  the  fourth  article  the  King  agreed  not  to  dispose  of 
any  port  or  harbor  in  his  dominions  or  create  a  lien  thereon 
in  favor  of  any  other  government.  When  the  treaty  came  to 
the  Senate  it  had  no  original  friends,  and  it  met  with  de- 
termined opposition,  especially  from  Sherman  of  Ohio,  and 
Morrill  and  Edmunds  of  Vermont.  The  reciprocity  feature 
annoyed  them,  they  fearing  that  it  might  be  used  as  a  prece- 
dent for  reciprocity  with  Canada. 

I  was  early  impressed  with  the  importance  of  securing  a 
foothold  in  the  islands  and  I  considered  the  exclusion  of  other 
nations  as  a  step  in  the  right  direction.  The  trustworthy  esti- 
mates showed  that  the  reciprocity  feature  would  work  a  loss 
to  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  of  more  than  half  a 
million  dollars  a  year.  This  the  supporters  of  the  treaty  were 
compelled  to  admit,  but  after  argument  the  requisite  majority 
ratified  the  treaty  and  upon  the  theory  that  the  political,  naval 
and  commercial  advantages  were  an  adequate  compensation. 
Upon  the  renewal  of  the  treaty  the  King  ceded  Pearl  River 
Harbor  to  the  United  States.  After  the  expiration  of  the 
fixed  period  of  seven  years  during  which  the  two  nations 

277 


278  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

were  bound  mutually,  there  was  a  class  of  men  who  were 
anxious  to  abrogate  the  treaty,  and  at  each  session  of  Con- 
gress for  several  years  a  proposition  was  introduced  for  that 
purpose.  By  something  of  argument  and  something  of  art, 
the  scheme  was  defeated.  The  opposition,  led  usually  by  Hoi- 
man,  of  Indiana,  consisted  largely  of  Democrats.  Their 
reason  was  loss  of  revenue.  That  fact  was  always  admitted 
by  the  friends  of  the  treaty.  It  was  claimed  also  that  there 
was  no  advantage  gained  by  the  country  from  the  introduc- 
tion of  rice  and  sugar  from  the  islands  duty-free.  It  was  as- 
serted that  by  combinations  the  prices  were  as  high  on  the 
Pacific  Coast  as  on  the  Atlantic,  On  the  other  hand  the 
Louisiana  sugar  planters  opposed  the  treaty  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  unfavorably  affected.  As  the  importations 
from  the  islands  never  exceeded  four  per  cent  of  the  consump- 
tion of  the  country,  the  treaty  had  no  perceptible  effect  upon 
prices.  The  sugar  and  rice  interests  were  reinforced  by  the 
delegations  from  Michigan,  Ohio  and  Vermont,  who  opposed 
the  treaty  under  an  apprehension  that  it  would  operate  as  a 
precedent  for  a  revival  of  the  system  of  reciprocity  with 
Canada. 

The  fact  of  the  annexation  of  Canada  to  the  United  States, 
whether  the  event  shall  occur  in  a  time  near  or  be  postponed 
to  a  time  remote,  depends  probably  on  our  action  upon  the 
subject  of  reciprocity. 

Canada  needs  our  markets  and  our  facilities  for  ocean 
transportation,  and,  as  long  as  these  advantages  are  denied 
to  her,  she  can  never  attain  to  a  high  degree  of  prosperity. 
England  may  furnish  capital  for  railways,  but  railways  are 
profitable  only  where  there  is  business  and  production  on  the 
one  hand,  and  markets  on  the  other.  The  system  of  qualified 
intercourse  tends  to  make  the  Canadian  farmer  dissatisfied 
with  his  condition,  and  as  long  as  there  are  cheap  lands  in 
the  United  States  he  will  find  relief  in  emigration. 


FROM  1875  TO  1895  279 

The  time,  however,  is  not  far  distant,  when  the  Canadian 
farmer  will  be  unable  to  sell  his  lands  in  the  Dominion  and 
with  the  proceeds  procure  a  home  in  the  States.  When  that 
time  arrives  he  will  favor  annexation  as  a  means  of  raising 
his  own  possessions  to  a  value  corresponding  to  the  value  of 
land  in  the  States.  The  body  of  farmers,  laborers,  and  trad- 
ing people  will  favor  annexation,  ultimately,  should  the  policy 
cf  non-intercourse  be  adhered  to  on  our  part,  and  they  will 
outnumber  the  office-holding  class,  and  thus  the  union  of 
the  two  countries  will  be  secured.  It  is  apparent  also  that 
a  policy  of  free  intercourse  would  postpone  annexation  for  a 
long  time,  if  not  indefinitely.  Give  to  the  Canadian  farmer 
and  fisherman  free  access  to  our  markets  and  there  will  re- 
main only  a  political  motive  in  favor  of  annexation.  The 
English  government  is  pursuing  a  liberal  policy  in  its  deal- 
ings with  the  Dominion,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  anticipat- 
ing a  retrograde  course  of  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  home 
government. 

THE  MISSISSIPPI  ELECTION  OF  1 875 

In  1876  I  was  made  chairman  of  a  committee  of  the  Senate 
charged  with  the  duty  of  investigating  the  election  of  1875 
in  the  State  of  Mississippi.  My  associates  were  Cameron  of 
Wisconsin,  McMillan  of  Minnesota,  Bayard  of  Delaware,  and 
McDonald  of  Missouri. 

By  the  election  of  1875  the  Republican  Party  had  been 
overthrown  and  the  power  of  the  Democratic  Party  established 
upon  a  basis  which  has  continued  firm,  until  the  present  time. 
The  question  for  investigation  was  this :  Was  the  election  of 
1875  an  honest  election?  There  was  an  agreement  of  opinion 
that  there  were  riots,  shootings  and  massacres.  On  the  side 
of  the  Democrats  it  was  contended  that  these  outrages  had 
no  political  significance,  that  they  were  due  to  personal  quar- 
rels, and  to  uprisings  of  negroes  for  the  purpose  of  murder- 


28o  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

ing  the  whites.  The  testimony  was  of  the  same  character  and 
the  conclusions  of  the  two  branches  of  the  committee  followed 
the  lead  of  these  conflicting  theories  and  statements.  For 
myself  I  had  no  doubt  that  the  election  of  1875  was  carried 
by  the  Democrats  by  a  preconcerted  plan  of  riots  and  assassi- 
nations.    To  me  the  evidence  seemed  conclusive. 

The  town  of  Aberdeen  was  the  scene  of  murderous  intimi- 
dation on  the  day  of  election,  and  at  about  eleven  o'clock 
the  Republicans  left  the  polling  place  and  abandoned  the  con- 
test. 

One  of  the  principal  witnesses  for  the  Dem_ocrats  was 
General  Reuben  Davis,  a  cousin  of  Jefferson  Davis.  He  had 
been  a  member  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  and  he  had  re- 
signed his  seat  to  take  part  in  the  Rebellion.  He  was  a  Briga- 
dier-General in  the  service,  but  without  distinction.  He  ex- 
plained and  excused  all  the  transactions  at  Aberdeen  and 
with  emphasis  and  adroitness  he  laid  the  responsibility  upon 
the  Republicans.  Of  certain  things  there  was  uncontradicted 
testimony,  i.  That  the  Democrats  placed  a  cannon  near  the 
voting-place  and  trained  it  upon  the  window  where  the  Re- 
publicans, mostly  negroes,  were  to  vote,  and  that  there  was  a 
caisson  at  the  same  place.  2.  That  there  was  a  company  of 
mounted  men  and  armed  cavalry  upon  the  ground.  3.  That 
guns  were  discharged  in  the  vicinity  of  the  voting  place.  4. 
That  at  about  eleven  o'clock  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  a  white 
man  and  a  Republican,  who  had  been  a  colonel  in  the  rebel 
army,  made  a  brief  address  to  the  Republican  voters  in  which 
he  said  that  there  could  be  no  election  and  advised  them  to  go 
to  their  homes.  This  they  did  without  delay.  The  sheriff 
locked  himself  in  the  jail  where  he  remained  until  the  events 
of  the  day  were  ended.  General  Davis  insisted  that  all  these 
demonstrations  of  apparent  hostility  had  no  significance — 
that  the  artillery  men  had  no  ammunition — that  the  cavalry 
men  were  assembled  for  sport  only — and  that  the  discharge 


FROM  1875  TO  1895  281 

of  muskets  was  made  by  boys  and  lawless  persons,  but  with- 
out malice. 

In  many  parts  of  the  State  the  canvass  previous  to  the  elec- 
tion was  characterized  by  assassinations  and  midnight  mur- 
ders.    But  all  were  explained  upon  non-political  grounds. 

In  1878  General  Davis  offered  himself  to  the  electors  as 
a  Democratic  candidate  for  Congress.  The  convention 
nominated  another  person.  He  then  entered  the  field  as  an 
independent  candidate.  He  was  defeated,  or  rather  the 
Democrat  was  declared  to  have  been  elected.  The  Republi- 
cans had  voted  for  Davis,  and  when  the  contest  was  decided 
by  the  returning  board  Davis  published  a  letter  in  which  he 
charged  upon  the  Democratic  leaders  the  conduct  which  in 
1876,  he  had  explained  and  defended.  After  the  election  of 
General  Harrison  in  1888,  General  Davis  appeared  at  Indi- 
anapolis as  a  Republican,  and  as  such  he  had  an  interview 
with  the  President-elect. 

While  I  was  conducting  the  investigation  at  Jackson,  a 
stout  negro  from  the  plantation  sought  an  interview  with  me 
after  he  had  been  examined  by  the  committee.  He  was  a 
mulatto  of  unusual  sense,  but  he  was  under  a  strong  feeling 
in  regard  to  the  outrages  that  had  been  perpetrated  upon  the 
negro  race. 

Finally  he  said :  "  Had  we  not  better  take  off  the  leaders  ? 
We  can  do  it  in  a  night." 

I  said :  "  No.  It  would  end  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  black 
population.  It  would  be  as  wrong  on  your  part  as  is  their 
conduct  towards  you.  Moreover,  we  intend  to  protect  you, 
and  in  the  end  you  will  be  placed  on  good  ground." 

There  is,  however,  a  lesson  and  a  warning  in  what  that 
negro  said.  If  the  wrongs  continue,  some  "  John  Brown  " 
black  or  white,  may  appear  in  Mississippi  or  South  Carolina 
or  in  several  states  at  once,  and  engage  in  a  vain  attempt  to 
regain  the  rights  of  the  negro  race  by  brutal  crimes.     The 


282  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

negroes  are  seven  million  to-day,  and  they  are  increasing  in 
numbers  and  gaining  in  wealth  and  intelligence.  The  South, 
and  indeed  the  whole  country  were  not  more  blind  to  impend- 
ing perils  in  the  days  of  slavery  than  we  now  are  to  the  perils 
of  the  usurpation  in  which  the  South  is  engaged.  With  such 
examples  as  this  country  furnishes  and  with  the  traditions 
under  whose  influence  all  classes  are  living,  there  will  always 
be  peril  as  long  as  large  bodies  of  citizens  are  deprived  of 
their  legal  rights. 

Should  such  a  contest  arise,  there  will  be  wide  spread 
S}Tnpathy  in  the  North,  which  might  convert  a  servile  or 
social  war  into  a  sectional  civil  war. 

COURTESY   OF  THE   SENATE SENATORIAL  ELECTION   OF    1 887 

One  of  my  last  acts  as  Secretary  was  to  advise  the  President 
to  nominate  a  Mr.  Hitchcock  for  collector  of  the  port  of  San 
Diego.  California.  Hitchcock  was  a  lawyer  by  profession,  a 
graduate  of  Har\^ard  and  a  man  of  good  standing  in  San 
Diego.  Mr.  Houghton,  the  member  for  the  San  Diego  dis- 
trict, had  recommended  a  man  who  was  a  saloon-keeper  and 
a  Democrat  in  politics,  but  he  had  supported  Houghton  in 
the  canvass.  Houghton's  request  was  supported  by  Senator 
Sargent.  Upon  the  facts  as  then  understood  the  President 
nominated  Hitchcock  and  one  of  the  first  questions  of  in- 
terest to  me  was  the  action  of  the  Senate  upon  the  nomination 
of  Hitchcock  which  I  supported. 

Sargent  appealed  to  what  was  known  as  the  courtesy  of  the 
Senate  a  rule  or  custom  which  required  Senators  of  the  same 
party  to  follow  the  lead  of  Senators  in  the  matter  of  nomi- 
nations from  the  respective  States.  To  this  rule  I  objected.  I 
refused  to  recognize  it,  and  I  said  that  I  would  never  appeal 
to  the  "  courtesy  "  of  the  Senate  in  any  matter  concerning 
the  State  of  Massachusetts.  Hitchcock  was  rejected.  The 
President  nominated  Houghton's  candidate. 


FROM  1875  TO  1895  283 

This  action  on  my  part  was  followed  by  consequences  which 
may  have  prevented  my  re-election  to  the  Senate.  When 
Judge  Russell,  who  was  collector  of  the  port  of  Boston,  was 
about  to  resign.  General  Butler,  who  had  early  knowledge  of 
the  purpose  of  Russell,  secured  from  General  Grant  the 
nomination  of  his  friend  William  A.  Simmons.  Simmons 
had  been  in  the  army,  he  had  had  experience  in  the  Internal 
Revenue  Service  and  his  record  was  good.  He  was,  however, 
Butler's  intimate  friend,  and  all  the  hostility  in  the  State 
against  Butler,  which  was  large,  was  directed  against  the 
confirmation.  I  was  not  personally  opposed  to  Simmons,  but 
I  thought  that  his  appointment  was  unwise  in  the  extreme, 
and  therefore  I  opposed  his  confirmation.  There  were  fair 
offers  of  compromise  on  men  who  were  free  from  objections, 
all  of  which  were  refused  by  Butler.  The  President  declined 
to  withdraw  the  nomination  unless  it  could  be  made  to  appear 
that  Simmons  was  an  unfit  man.  This  could  not  be  done. 
I  was  upon  the  Committee  on  Commerce  to  which  the  nomi- 
nation was  referred,  and  upon  my  motion  the  report  was  ad- 
verse to  the  nomination.  Butler  came  to  my  room  and  de- 
nounced my  action,  saying  that  he  would  spend  half  a  million 
dollars  to  defeat  my  re-election.     I  said  in  reply : — 

"  You  can  do  that  if  you  choose,  but  you  cannot  control 
my  action  now." 

In  the  Senate  I  opposed  the  confirmation  on  the  ground 
that  a  majority  of  the  Republican  Party  were  dissatisfied, 
that  it  was  an  unnecessary  act  of  violence  to  their  feelings, 
that  there  were  men  who  were  acceptable  who  could  be  con- 
sidered, and  that  the  means  by  which  the  nomination  was 
secured  could  not  be  defended.  I  was  then  challenged  to  say 
whether  I  appealed  to  the  courtesy  of  the  Senate.     I  said : 

"  No,  I  do  not.  I  ask  for  the  rejection  of  Simmons  upon 
the  ground  that  the  nomination  ought  not  to  have  been  made." 

Sumner  appealed  to  the  courtesy  of  the  Senate,  but  he  had 


284  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

then  wandered  so  far  from  the  Republican  Party  that  his 
appeal  was  disregarded.     Simmons  was  confirmed. 

Enough  of  the  proceedings  were  made  public  to  enable  my 
opponents  to  allege  that  I  might  have  defeated  Simmons,  and 
that  my  action  was  insincere.  As  a  result  I  had  no  further 
political  intercourse  with  Butler,  and  when  the  contest  came 
in  1877  his  action  aided  Mr.  Hoar  in  securing  the  seat  in 
the  Senate.  I  presume,  however,  that  Butler  preferred  my 
election,  but  he  had  hopes  for  himself,  or  at  least  that  the 
election  would  go  to  a  third  party.  A  day  or  two  before 
the  election  he  sent  me  a  friendly  despatch  urging  me  to  go 
to  Boston.  I  had  already  determined  to  avoid  any  personal 
participation  in  the  contest.  That  non-interference  I  have 
never  regretted. 

THE  ELECTORAL   COMMISSION 

As  I  now  view  the  subject  (1900)  the  Electoral  Commis- 
sion was  an  indefensible  necessity.  In  the  division  of  parties 
it  seemed  impossible,  and  probably  it  was  impossible,  to  secure 
a  result  with  peace  to  the  country,  except  by  a  resort  to 
extraordinary  means. 

When  the  bill  passed  the  two  houses  the  chances  were  with 
the  Democrats.  Judge  Davis  was  in  the  list  of  judges  from 
the  Supreme  Court.  His  sympathies,  and  perhaps  his  opin- 
ions, were  with  the  Democratic  Party,  and  there  was  reason 
to  apprehend  that  he  might  incline  to  act  with  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  commission.  After  the  passage  of  the  bill 
Judge  Davis  was  chosen  Senator  from  Illinois,  and  Judge 
Strong  became  a  member.  Upon  the  pivotal  questions  the 
members  acted  upon  their  political  opinions,  or,  most  certainly 
in  accordance  with  them. 

I  voted  for  the  bill  upon  the  understanding  that  there  was 
no  specific  authority  for  such  a  proceeding.  Indeed,  the 
questions  might  have  been  referred  to  the  mayors  of  New 


FROM  1875  TO  1895  285 

York  and  Brooklyn,  upon  grounds  equally  defensible  in  a 
legal  point  of  view,  although  the  tribunal  selected  was  much 
better  qualified  for  the  duty.  Having  agreed  to  the  use  of 
an  unconstitutional  tribunal,  or  to  an  extra  constitutional 
tribunal,  I  had  no  qualms  about  accepting  the  result.  Nor 
was  I  especially  gratified  by  the  action  of  the  commission. 
My  connections  with  Mr.  Conkling  led  me  to  think  that  he 
had  great  doubts  about  the  propriety  of  the  decision  in  the 
case  of  Louisiana,  and  that  doubt  may  have  led  him  to  avoid 
the  vote  in  the  Senate. 

REVISION    OF    THE    STATUTES    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,    1 878 

As  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Revision  of  the 
Statutes,  I  framed  and  reported  the  amendments  to  the  Re- 
vised Statutes,  which  were  afterwards  incorporated  in  the 
edition  of  1878,  which  I  prepared  by  the  appointment  of 
President  Hayes  after  my  term  in  the  Senate  expired,  which 
was  made  probably,  upon  the  recommendation  of  Attorney- 
General  Devens  and  without  any  solicitation  on  my  part,  or 
by  any  of  my  friends,  as  far  as  I  know. 

The  edition  of  1878  contains  references  to  every  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  down  to  and  including  volume 
194.  It  contains  a  reference  to  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  all  arranged  and  classified  under  the  various  sections, 
articles  and  paragraphs  of  that  instrument.  In  doing  this 
work  I  was  compelled  to  read  all  the  opinions  of  the  Court 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Government,  so  far,  at  least,  as 
to  understand  the  character  of  each  opinion. 

The  preparation  of  the  index  was  the  work  of  months.  Its 
value  is  great  and  the  credit  is  due  to  Chief  Justice  Richard- 
son who  not  only  aided  me,  but  he  devised  the  plan  and  gave 
direction  to  the  work  as  it  went  on.  It  was  our  rule  to 
index  every  provision  under  at  least  three  heads,  and  in  many 
cases  there  is  a  sub-classification  under  the  general  designa- 


286  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

tion.  We  avoided  an  error  into  which  many  writers  fall — 
we  never  indexed  under  the  lead  of  an  adjective,  article  or 
participle. 

FRENCH    AND  AMERICAN    CLAIM    COMMISSION,    1880 

In  1880,  Mr.  Evarts,  the  Secretary  of  State,  invited  me  to 
act  as  counsel  for  the  Government  in  defence  of  the  claims 
of  French  citizens  for  losses  sustained  during  the  Civil  War. 
There  were  more  than  seven  hundred  cases  and  the  claims 
amounted  to  more  than  thirty-five  million  dollars  including 
interest.  The  recoveries  fell  below  six  hundred  and  thirty 
thousand  dollars.  The  printed  record  covered  sixty  thousand 
pages,  and  my  printed  arguments  filled  about  two  thousand 
pages.  The  discussions  and  decisions  involved  many  im- 
portant questions  of  international  law,  citizenship,  the  con- 
struction of  treaties,  and  the  laws  of  war. 

The  chairman  was  Baron  de  Arinos.  He  was  a  man  of  un- 
assuming manners,  of  great  intelligence,  and  of  extensive 
acquaintance  with  diplomatic  subjects.  He  was  reserved, 
usually,  but  he  was  never  lacking  in  ability  when  a  subject 
had  received  full  consideration  at  his  hands.  As  far  as  I  recall 
his  decisions,  when  he  had  to  dispose  of  cases  on  which  the 
French  and  American  commissioners  differed,  I  cannot  name 
one  which  appeared  to  be  unjust. 

The  insignificant  sum  awarded  was  due  to  many  circum- 
stances. Of  those,  who  as  French  citizens  had  suffered  losses 
during  the  war,  many  had  become  American  citizens  by 
naturalization.  Again  others  were  natives  of  Alsace  and  Lor- 
raine, and  the  commission  held  that  they  were  not  entitled  to 
the  protection  of  France  in  1880  when  the  treaty  was  made. 
But  the  losses  were  chiefly  due  to  the  absence  of  adequate 
evidence  as  to  the  ownership  of  the  property  for  which  claims 
were  made,  and  to  the  enormous  exaggerations  as  to  values 
in  which  the  claimants  indulged. 


FROiM  1875  TO  1895  287 

COURTS-MARTIAL 

Between  the  year  1880  and  the  year  1895  there  were  five 
general  courts-martial  held  in  the  city  of  Washington  and 
I  appeared  for  the  defendants  in  four  of  them. 

I  was  also  retained  for  the  investigation  of  two  cases  of 
officers  of  the  Navy  who  had  been  convicted  by  courts-martial, 
one  of  them  held  in  the  waters  of  China  and  the  other  on 
the  coast  of  Brazil.  The  latter,  the  case  of  Reed,  which  may 
be  found  in  volume  100  of  the  United  States  Reports,  be- 
came important  as  the  first  attempt  by  the  Supreme  Court  to 
define  and  limit  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  tribunals  over 
the  proceedings  of  courts-martial. 

The  courts  consist  of  thirteen  officers  of  the  service  to 
which  the  accused  may  belong,  and  by  a  majority  in  number 
they  are  his  seniors  in  rank,  if  the  condition  of  the  service 
will  permit  such  a  selection. 

A  court  thus  constituted  is  an  imposing  tribunal,  and  in 
dignity  of  appearance  not  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.  The  members  are  well  instructed  in  the 
requirements  of  the  service,  but  their  knowledge  of  the  science 
of  law,  especially  in  its  technicalities,  is  limited.  It  is  the 
theory  of  the  system  that  the  judge-advocate  will  be  an  im- 
partial adviser  of  the  court  and  that  he  will  protect  the  ac- 
cused against  any  irregular  proceeding  and  especially  protect 
him  against  the  admission  of  any  testimony  that  would  be 
excluded  in  an  ordinary  court  of  law. 

In  fact,  however,  the  judge  advocate  becomes  the  attorney 
of  the  Government,  especially  when  the  accused  has  the  aid 
of  counsel.  His  advice  to  the  court  becomes  the  rule  of  the 
court.  Questions  of  testimony  are  important  usually,  and 
the  line  between  what  is  competent  and  that  w^hich  should  be 
excluded  is  often  a  very  delicate  line.  The  judge  should  be  a 
disinterested  person.    It  is  too  much  to  assume  that  an  advo- 


/ 


288  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

cate  can  in  a  moment  transform  himself  into  an  impartial 
judge. 

In  the  case  of  Reed,  which  was  an  application  by  a  habeas 
corpus  proceeding  for  the  discharge  of  Reed  from  prison,  the 
Supreme  Court  held  that  it  could  not  examine  the  proceedings 
of  the  court-martial  further  than  to  inquire  whether  the  act 
charged  was  an  offence  under  the  rules  of  the  service,  and, 
second,  whether  the  punishment  was  one  which  the  court 
had  power  to  impose. 

Thus  it  follows,  that  intermediate  errors  and  wrongs 
w^hether  by  the  exclusion  or  admission  of  testimony,  or  by 
corruption  even,  cannot  be  remedied  by  judicial  tribunals  on 
the  civil  side. 

A  partial  remedy  for  possible  evils  may  be  found  through 
the  appointment  of  a  judge  from  the  civil  courts,  or  of  an 
experienced  lawyer  who  should  become  the  adviser  of  the 
court-martial,  in  place  of  the  judge-advocate — thus  leaving 
to  him  the  duties  of  an  attorney  in  behalf  of  the  Government. 


/ 


XLII 

LAST  OF  THE  OCEAN  SLAVE-TRADERS* 

IN  the  month  of  April,  1861,  a  bark,  registering  215  tons, 
anchored  in  the  bay  of  Port  Liberte,  a  place  of  no 
considerable  importance,  on  the  northerly  coast  of  the 
island  of  Hayti,  about  twenty  miles  from  the  boundary  of 
Santo  Domingo.     The  vessel  carried  the  flag  of  France,  and 
the  captain  called  himself  Jules  Letellier.  The  name  of  the  ves- 
sel was  not  painted  upon  the  stern,  as  is  required  by  our  law; 
but  the  captain  gave  her  name  as  Guillaume  Tell,  bound  from 
Havana  to  Havre.     He  stated  that  he  had  suffered  a  dis- 
aster at  the  island  of  Guadaloupe,  and  that  he  had  been  com- 
pelled to  throw  a  part  of  his  cargo  overboard.     He  said  also 
that  his  object  in  putting  into  the  port  was  to  obtain  assistance 
for  the  recovery  of  his  cargo;  and  for  that  purpose  he  solicited 
recruits.    The  authorities  became  suspicious  of  the  craft,  and 
an  arrest  was  made  of  the  vessel,  her  officers  and  men.  After 
some  delay  the  vessel  was  sent  to  Port  au  Prince,  where  she 
was  condemned  and  confiscated  upon  the  charge  of  being 
engaged  "  in  piracy  and  slave-trading  on  the  coast  of  Hayti." 
Upon  investigation  it  appeared  that  the  true  name  of  the 
vessel  was  William,  and  that  the  name  of  the  captain  was  An- 
tonio Pelletier.     Pelletier  was  tried  according  to  the  laws  of 
Hayti,  convicted  and  sentenced  to  death.     The  sentence  was 
commuted  to  imprisonment  for  a  term  of  years.     The  facts 
of  his  arrest  and  of  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  him  were 
*  Printed  in  the  New  England  Magazine.     Copyright,  1900,  by  War- 
ren F.  Kellogg. 

289 


290  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

published  in  the  New  York  Herald;  and  thereupon,  as  it  ap- 
peared in  the  investigation  that  was  afterward  made,  his  wife 
married  and,  taking  Pelletier's  two  children,  left  the  country. 
Pelletier  was  kept  in  prison  for  about  two  years,  when  he 
escaped,  probably  with  the  connivance  of  the  authorities.  He 
returned  to  the  United  States.  Previous  to  his  escape  he 
gained  the  confidence  of  the  commissioner  of  the  United 
States  at  Port  au  Prince,  who  made  a  report  in  his  behalf 
and  upon  the  ground  that  he  had  been  arrested,  tried  and  con- 
victed for  an  offence  of  which  he  was  not  guilty. 

That  report  was  made  to  the  Department  of  State,  when 
Mr.  Seward  was  Secretary  of  State.  Mr.  Seward  declined  to 
act,  upon  two  grounds, — first,  it  was  not  proved  that  Pelletier 
was  a  citizen  of  the  United  States;  and  second,  the  course  of 
Hayti  seemed  to  be  justified  by  the  facts  as  they  then  appeared. 
Pelletier  presented  a  statement  of  his  claim,  amounting  in  all 
to  about  $2,500,000.  He  placed  the  value  of  the  bark  Wil- 
liam and  her  cargo,  with  some  money  which  he  claimed  was 
on  her,  at  about  $92,000.  He  claimed  also  that  he  had  been 
subjected  to  many  losses  in  business  transactions,  which  he 
had  been  unable  to  consummate  owing  to  his  arrest  in  Hayti. 
These  amounted  to  about  $750,000.  The  most  extraordinary 
claim  was  the  claim  for  damages  to  his  person,  in  the  matter 
of  his  arrest  and  captivity,  and  the  loss  of  his  wife,  children 
and  home,  for  all  of  which  he  charged  $300,000. 

The  claimant  pressed  his  claim  persistently  to  the  State 
Department;  and  in  the  year  1884,  when  Mr.  Frelinghuysen 
was  Secretary  of  State,  a  protocol  was  entered  into  between 
him  and  Mr.  Preston,  then  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  re- 
public of  Hayti,  by  which  this  claim,  with  another  large  claim 
in  behalf  of  A.  H.  Lazare  against  the  republic  of  Hayti,  was 
submitted  to  an  international  arbitrator, — the  Hon.  William 
Strong,  formerly  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.     The  republic  of  Hayti  retained  Charles  A. 


LAST  OF  THE  OCEAN  SLAVE-TRADERS      291 

de  Chambrun  and  myself  as  counsel  for  the  defence.  The 
hearing  occupied  one  year  of  time,  and  the  documents  and 
the  testimony  taken  covered  two  thousand  printed  pages.  The 
investigation  showed  that  Pelletier  was  born  at  Fontaine- 
bleau  in  France  in  the  year  18 19.  At  the  age  of  fourteen  he 
ran  away  from  his  home  and  country  and  came  to  the  United 
States,  where  he  found  employment  on  board  a  ship,  which 
was  owned  and  navigated  by  one  Blanchard  of  the  State  of 
Maine.  From  about  the  year  1835  to  the  year  1850,  Pelletier 
was  employed  upon  shipboard  in  various  menial  capacities, 
until  finally  he  became  master  of  several  small  vessels,  which 
were  employed  on  short  voyages  in  the  Caribbean  Sea  and 
on  the  coast  of  South  America,  About  the  year  1850  he 
appeared  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  between  that  time  and 
1859  he  was  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  where  on  one  occasion 
and  as  the  representative  of  some  local  party  he  was  a  candi- 
date for  alderman.  He  was  also  engaged  for  a  time  in  the 
manufacture  of  boots  and  shoes  at  Troy,  New  York. 

In  the  autumn  of  i860  there  appeared  a  statement  in  the 
newspapers  that  a  bark  called  the  Williami  had  been  arrested 
and  condemned  at  Key  West  upon  the  charge  of  having  been 
fitted  out  for  the  slave  trade.  Guided  by  that  notice,  Pelle- 
tier went  to  Havana,  and  employed  an  agent  to  go  to  Key 
West  and  to  purchase  the  bark.  The  purchase  was  made  at 
a  cost  of  $1,504.  In  Pelletier  s  statement  of  his  claim.,  he 
asserted  that  he  paid  something  over  $10,000  for  the  vessel. 
From  Key  West  the  vessel  was  sent  to  Mobile  in  charge  of 
a  man  named  Thomas  Collar,  who  became  Pelletier's  mate, 
but  who  was  known  on  the  vessel  as  Samuel  Gerdon.  At 
Mobile  the  William  was  fitted  out  for  the  voyage  under  the 
direction  and  apparent  ownership  of  a  firm  in  that  city  known 
as  Delauney,  Rice  &  Co.,  of  which  Pelletier  claimed  to  be  a 
member  and  proprietor  to  the  extent  of  $50,000,  the  patri- 
mony which  he  had  received  upon  the  death  of  his  father. 


292  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

The  vessel  was  freighted  with  lumber,  and  was  cleared  for 
Carthagena,  New  Granada,  in  October.  She  arrived  at  that 
port  late  in  November.  The  investigation  showed  that  a 
portion  of  the  lumber  was  placed  upon  the  deck  when  there 
was  space  below  where  it  might  have  been  stored.  It  ap- 
peared also  that  the  vessel  contained  a  large  number  of  water 
casks,  some  twenty  or  twenty-five,  about  twenty  pairs  of 
manacles,  a  quantity  of  ammunition,  and  that  the  number  of 
sailors  was  considerably  in  excess  of  the  number  required  for 
the  navigation  of  the  vessel. 

At  Carthagena  Pelletier  made  a  contract  with  a  colored 
man  named  Cortes,  to  carry  him  with  his  wife  and  children 
and  servant  to  a  point  on  the  coast  east  of  Carthagena,  known 
as  Rio  de  Hache.  This  contract  he  never  performed.  The 
original  object  of  the  voyage,  as  he  alleged,  was  to  obtain  a 
cargo  of  guano,  at  an  island  which  he  named  Buida.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  such  island,  or  at  any  rate  none 
could  be  found  on  the  maps,  nor  was  its  existence  known  to 
the  officers  of  our  Government  who  had  been  engaged  in 
taking  soundings  in  the  Caribbean  Sea. 

While  the  William  was  at  Carthagena,  one  of  the  men  de- 
serted and  notified  the  commander  of  a  British  man-of-war 
that  the  object  of  the  voyage  of  the  bark  William  was  a 
cargo  of  negroes  to  be  carried  to  the  United  States  and  sold 
as  slaves.  Following  the  desertion  of  this  man,  Pelletier  left 
Carthagena  and,  instead  of  proceeding  to  Rio  de  Hache,  which 
was  understood  to  be  the  destination  of  the  British  man-of- 
war,  he  took  a  northerly  course  toward  the  island  of  Grand 
Inagua.  Upon  this  change  of  the  course  of  the  vessel,  Cortes 
became  alarmed  for  his  safety,  and  he  urged  Pelletier  to  put 
him  ashore,  and  especially  for  the  reason  that  the  shades  of 
maternity  were  falling  on  his  wife.  After  a  delay  of  ten  days, 
Pelletier  consented  to  land  him.  which  he  did  at  Grand  Inagua, 
and  secured  in  payment  the  goods  and  effects  which  Cortes 


LAST  OF  THE  OCEAN  SLAVE-TRADERS      293 

had  on  board  the  vessel,  and  which  were  understood  to  be  of 
the  value  of  $500  or  more. 

In  the  month  of  January,   1861,  Pelletier  arrived  in  the 
harbor  of  Port  au  Prince,  Hayti,  where  he  was  accused  of 
being  engaged  in  a  slave-trading  expedition  by  five  of  his 
men  whom  he  had  landed  and  caused  to  be  put  in  prison  on 
the  charge  of  insubordination.    The  authorities  were  so  well 
convinced  of  the  unlawful  character  of  the  expedition  that 
they  ordered  Pelletier  to  leave  without  delay.     He  was  con- 
voyed out  of  the  harbor  by  an  armed  vessel,  and  upon  the 
understanding  that  he  was  to  sail  for  New  Orleans.     As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  he  employed  the  months  following, 
until  April,  in  expeditions  among  the  islands  of  the  Caribbean 
Sea.     In  the  course  of  the  investigation,  Pelletier  appeared 
upon  the  stand  as  a  witness.     In  a  series  of  questions  which 
I  put  to  him,  I  asked  for  the  names  of  the  vessels  which  he  had 
commanded,  previous  to  the  voyage  of  the  William.    Among 
others  he  mentioned  the  Ardennes,  which  was  an  American 
ship,  registered.     It  turned  out  upon  further  investigation 
that  that  ship  was  fitted  out  by  him  at  Jacksonville  in  the 
year  1859,  and  cleared  for  the  Canary  Islands.     Her  cargo 
consisted  of  rum,  sugar,  cigars  and  tobacco.     From  the  ad- 
mission of  Pelletier  it  appeared  that  he  never  reached  the 
Canary  Islands,  but  made  the  coast  of  Africa,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Congo  River.     Upon  being  pressed  for  a  reason  for 
the  change,  he  stated  that  he  had  been  driven  there  by  a 
storm.    We  were  able  to  cause  an  examination  to  be  made  of 
the  records  of  the  Pluto,  a  British  man-of-war,  that  discovered 
the  Ardennes  near  Magna  Grand  in  April,  1859.    The  officers 
of  the  Pluto  boarded  the  Ardennes,  and  made  such  an  ex- 
amination as  they  thought  proper.     The  captain  made  this 
entry  after  an  examination  of  the  vessel's  papers  and  register, 
namely :  "  Which,  though  not  appearing  to  be  correct,  I  did 
not  detain  or  molest  them."     The  Ardennes  lingered  in  the 


294  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

vicinity  of  the  mouth  of  the  Congo,  where  she  was  arrested 
by  the  officers  of  the  United  States  ship  Marion,  under  com- 
mand of  Captain  Brent.  The  results  of  the  examination 
which  he  made  and  the  circumstances  of  which  he  obtained 
knowledge  were  such  that  he  took  possession  of  the  vessel  and 
sent  her  to  New  York  upon  the  charge  of  being  engaged  in 
the  slave  trade.  The  evidence  produced  at  New  York  was 
not  sufficient  to  lead  the  court  to  condemn  her,  but  the  judge 
gave  a  certificate  that  there  was  probable  cause  for  her  arrest. 
The  real  character  of  the  voyage  of  the  William  from  Mo- 
bile was  finally  established  beyond  all  controversy.  In  the 
year  1880,  a  treaty  was  made  between  the  United  States  and 
France,  by  which  an  international  commission  was  created 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  validity  of  claims  made  by 
citizens  of  the  United  States  against  France  and  of  claims 
made  by  citizens  of  France  against  the  United  States.  Among 
the  claimants  against  the  United  States  were  two  French- 
men of  the  name  of  Le  More,  residents  of  New  Orleans.  At 
the  time  of  the  capture  of  New  Orleans  in  the  year  1862, 
these  men  had  in  their  possession  a  large  sum  of  money  be- 
longing to  the  Confederate  government.  By  the  proclama- 
tion of  General  Butler,  made  immediately  upon  the  capture 
of  the  city,  all  intercourse  with  the  Confederate  authorities 
by  residents  of  New  Orleans  was  interdicted.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  proclamation,  the  Le  Mores  contrived  to  convey  the 
funds  in  their  possession  across  the  line,  and  to  procure  their 
delivery  to  the  Confederate  authorities.  General  Butler,  hav- 
ing obtained  knowledge  of  this  transaction,  had  the  Le  Mores 
brought  before  him.  He  then  questioned  them,  and  upon  his 
own  judgment  and  without  trial  he  sent  them  as  prisoners 
to  Ship  Island,  where  they  were  confined  for  a  time  with  an 
attachment  of  a  ball  and  chain.  Each  of  these  men  presented 
a  claim  to  the  commission,  and,  there  being  no  defence,  an 
award  of  $20,000  was  made  to  each.     If  General  Butler  had 


LAST  OF  THE  OCEAN  SLAVE-TRADERS     295 

convened  a  military  court  or  commission,  as  he  should  have 
done,  and  had  he  obtained  a  conviction,  as  he  would  have 
obtained  one,  he  would  not  have  subjected  the  United  States 
to  the  judgments  which  were  rendered  finally. 

In  that  hearing,  De  Chambrun  represented  the  Government 
of  France  and  I  represented  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.  Thus  having  knowledge  of  the  Le  Mores,  who  were 
yet  in  New  Orleans,  we  applied  to  them  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  character  of  Delauney,  Rice  &  Co.,  and  also 
whether  there  was  any  person  living  who  had  knowledge  of 
the  fitting  out  of  the  bark  William.  They  found  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Louis  Moses,  who  had  been  a  resident  of  New 
Orleans  since  the  year  1852,  and  who  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  house  of  Delauney,  Rice  &  Co.,  having  transacted 
business  for  it,  and  who  was  himself  concerned  in  the  fitting 
out  of  the  bark  William.  He  had  indeed  invested,  in  one 
form  or  another,  the  sum  of  $15,000  in  the  enterprise,  of 
which  he  had  evidence  in  writing.  He  stated  that  the  object 
of  the  voyage  was  to  obtain  a  cargo  of  negroes  in  some  of 
the  islands  of  the  Caribbean  Sea,  and  to  bring  them  to  a 
desert  island  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi,  near  the 
mainland  of  Louisiana ;  in  fine,  that  there  was  no  purpose  to 
obtain  a  cargo  of  guano. 

When  the  hearing  commenced,  in  the  year  1884,  Pelletier 
came  before  the  arbitrator  in  perfect  health  and  with  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  man  of  ability  and  of  fortune.  After  an  ac- 
quaintance of  about  a  year  I  was  able  to  use  this  language 
in  my  final  argument :  "It  is  a  singular  circumstance  that 
Captain  Pelletier  has  not  produced  an  original  paper  or  docu- 
ment in  support  of  his  claim.  He  is  sixty  years  of  age  or 
more.  He  is  a  man  not  deficient  in  intellectual  capacity,  what- 
ever else  may  be  said  of  him.  He  is  endowed  by  nature  with 
ability  for  large  and  honest  undertakings.  He  claims  to  have 
had  an  extensive  business  experience;  to  have  been  the  pos- 


296  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

sessor  of  large  wealth;  to  have  been  trusted  in  fiduciary  ways; 
and  he  comes  here  and  claims  compensation  for  a  great  out- 
rage, as  he  alleges,  upon  his  person  and  his  rights;  and  yet 
he  has  not  produced  a  paper  that  has  the  signature  of  any 
being,  living  or  dead,  by  which  he  can  sustain  the  claim  he 
makes.  What  is  his  answer  in  regard  to  the  absence  of 
papers  ?  It  is  that  they  were  on  board  the  bark  William.  Ac- 
cording to  the  best  information  we  can  obtain,  that  bark  was 
not  less  than  twelve  or  fifteen  years  of  age.  We  know  that  it 
did  not  much  exceed  two  hundred  tons  burden.  It  was  bound 
on  a  voyage  into  tempestuous  seas;  and,  leaving  behind  him 
wealth,  as  he  says,  to  be  measured  by  the  million,  he  embarks 
on  that  vessel  with  all  his  papers,  including  title  deeds,  articles 
of  copartnership,  powers  of  attorney,  and  preliminary  ac- 
counts relating  to  unsettled  affairs.  He  is  a  member  of  the 
house  of  Delauney,  Rice  &  Co.,  in  which  he  had  deposited 
his  patrimony  to  the  extent  of  fifty  thousand  dollars;  and  he 
carries  away  on  that  frail  bark  all  evidence  of  his  investment 
in  that  firm.  He  had,  he  said,  a  partnership  agreement;  he 
had  accounts  of  profits  that  had  been  rendered  from  time  to 
time, — and  all  are  gone.  He  had  a  dear  wife  and  two  chil- 
dren, for  whose  loss  he  now  demands  large  compensation ;  and 
yet  he  carried  away  the  evidence  on  which  their  right  to  his 
estate  would  have  depended,  in  case  of  his  death.  The  state- 
ment may  be  true,  but  in  the  nature  of  things  it  is  not  prob- 
able. That  we  may  believe  a  statement  of  that  sort,  evidence 
is  required,  not  from  one  man  unknown,  not  from  one  man 
impeached,  but  from  many  men  of  reputable  standing  in  so- 
ciety. It  is  not  to  be  believed  that  a  man  who  had  been  en- 
gaged in  transactions  measured  by  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  dollars,  through  a  period  of  ten  years,  should  take  every 
evidence  of  those  transactions  on  board  a  vessel  of  hardly 
more  than  two  hundred  tons  burden,  manned  by  a  crew  com- 
posed of  highbinders,  as  he  has  described  them,  and  sail  to 


LAST  OF  THE  OCEAN  SLAVE-TRADERS      297 

foreign  lands,  over  tempestuous  seas,  upon  the  poor  pretext 
of  procuring  guano  for  the  plantations  of  Louisiana, — and 
this,  as  he  says,  when  war  was  imminent." 

In  my  argument  to  the  arbitrator  I  attempted  to  trace  the 
voyage  of  the  Ardennes  and  the  voyage  of  the  William  with 
as  much  minuteness  as  seemed  to  me  to  be  wise  under  the 
circumstances,  and  for  the  sole  purpose  of  establishing  the 
charge  that  Pelletier  was  engaged  in  the  slave  trade.  The 
character  of  the  voyage  of  the  Ardennes  was  important  in 
view  of  the  rule  of  law  that,  in  the  trial  of  a  person  charged 
with  the  crime  of  slave-trading,  evidence  is  admissible  which 
tends  to  prove  that  the  accused  had  been  engaged  in  similar 
undertakings  at  about  the  same  time. 

My  argument  occupied  the  business  hours  of  two  sessions 
of  the  court.  At  the  opening  of  the  court  Pelletier  appeared, 
took  a  seat,  and  remained  during  the  first  thirty  or  forty 
minutes  of  my  argument,  when  he  disappeared.  The  New 
York  Herald,  on  the  morning  of  the  third  day  after  Pelle- 
tier's  last  appearance,  contained  the  announcement  that  An- 
tonio Pelletier  had  died  suddenly  at  the  Astor  House  in  the 
city  of  New  York.  The  hearing  proceeded,  and  on  the  30th 
day  of  June,  1885,  Mr.  Justice  Strong  filed  his  opinion  in 
the  Department  of  State.     In  that  opinion,  he  says: 

"  I  can  hardly  escape  from  the  conviction  that  the  voyage 
of  the  bark  William  was  an  illegal  voyage;  that  its  paramount 
purpose  was  to  obtain  a  cargo  of  negroes,  either  by  purchase 
or  kidnapping,  and  bring  them  into  slavery  in  the  State  of 
Louisiana;  and  that  the  load  of  lumber,  and  the  profession 
of  a  purpose  to  go  for  a  cargo  of  guano  were  mere  covers 
to  conceal  the  true  character  of  the  enterprise."  He  states 
also  "  that  Pelletier  had  applied  to  a  Haytian  to  obtain  fifty 
men  and  some  women,  blacks,  of  course,  to  assist  him  in 
obtaining  guano."  The  arbitrator  found,  however,  that  by 
the  law  of  nations  the  courts  of  Hayti  had  no  jurisdiction  of 


298  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  case.  "  It  is  undeniable,"  said  Justice  Strong,  "  that  none 
of  them  were  piratical  in  view  of  the  law  of  nations." 

By  the  act  d'accusation  Pelletier  was  charged  with  piracy 
and  slave-trading  on  the  coast  of  Hayti.  The  arbitrator  found 
that  he  was  not  guilty  of  piracy  and  that  the  act  of  slave- 
trading  was  never  committed,  although  the  design  and  pur- 
pose of  the  voyage  were  perfectly  clear.  The  claims  as  pre- 
sented were  all  rejected  by  the  arbitrator,  except  the  claim 
for  injury  to  Pelletier  personally  by  his  confinement  in  prison. 
For  that  injury  the  arbitrator  allowed  Pelletier  the  sum  of 
$25  a  day  during  his  confinement,  and  the  interest  thereon 
up  to  the  time  the  judgment  was  rendered,  amounting  in  all 
to  $57,250. 

When  the  judgment  had  been  rendered,  the  counsel  for 
Hayti  presented  a  memorial  to  the  State  Department,  setting 
forth  the  impropriety  and  bad  policy  of  a  presentation  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  of  a  judgment  rendered  in 
favor  of  a  claimant  who  had  been  found  guilty  of  fitting  out 
a  slave-trading  expedition  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  and  using  the  flag  of  the  United  States  as  a  protection 
in  the  prosecution  of  his  illegal  undertaking.  Mr.  Bayard  was 
then  Secretary  of  State,  and  Mr.  Cleveland  was  President. 
That  view  of  the  counsel  of  Hayti  was  accepted  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  and  by  the  President,  and  the  government  of 
Hayti  was  relieved  from  the  payment  of  the  claim.  I  ought 
to  add  that  Mr.  Justice  Strong  concurred  with  the  counsel 
for  Hayti,  and  made  a  representation  to  the  Department  of 
State  urging  the  remission  of  the  penalty  in  the  judgment  he 
had  rendered. 

The  decision  of  Mr.  Justice  Strong  raises  a  question  of  a 
very  serious  character — that  is  to  say,  whether  an  inter- 
national tribunal  can  take  notice  of  proceedings  in  the  judicial 
tribunals  of  a  foreign  state,  further  than  to  ascertain  whether 
the  proceedings  were  according  to  "  due  process  of  law  "  in 


LAST  OF  THE  OCEAN  SLAVE-TRADERS      299 

the  state  where  the  proceedings  were  had.  Justice  Strong 
went  so  far  as  to  hold  that  the  courts  of  Hayti  had  erred 
upon  the  question  of  their  own  jurisdiction.  Such  a  ruHng, 
if  appHed  to  cases  of  public  importance,  might  lead  to  very 
serious  results. 


XLIII 

MR.  LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSON- 
AGE 

A  SPEECH  DELIVERED  BEFORE  THE  LA  SALLE  CLUB,  CHICAGO, 

FEBRUARY    12,    1 889 

THE  services  and  fame  of  Mr.  Lincoln  are  so  identified 
with  the  organization,  doings  and  character  of  the 
Repubhcan  Party,  that  something  of  the  history  of 
that  party  is  the  necessary  incident  of  every  attempt  to  set 
forth  the  services  and  the  fame  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

In  a  very  important  sense  Mr.  Lincoln  may  be  regarded 
as  the  founder  of  the  Republican  Party.  He  was  its  leader 
in  the  first  successful  national  contest,  and  it  was  during  his 
administration  as  President  that  the  policy  of  the  party  was 
developed  and  its  capacity  for  the  business  of  government 
established.  The  Republican  Party  gave  to  Mr.  Lincoln  the 
opportunity  for  the  services  on  which  his  fame  rests,  and 
the  fame  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  the  inheritance  of  the  Republican 
Party.  His  eulogy  is  its  encomium,  and  therefore  when  we 
set  forth  the  character  and  services  of  Mr.  Lincoln  we  set 
forth  as  well  the  claims  of  the  Republican  Party  to  the  grati- 
tude and  confidence  of  the  country,  and  the  favorable  opinion 
of  mankind. 

If  it  could  be  assumed  that  for  the  Republican  Party  the 
Book  of  Life  is  already  closed,  it  is  yet  true  that  that  party 
is  an  historical  party  and  Mr.  Lincoln  is  an  historical  person- 
age, not  less  so  than  Cromwell,  Napoleon,  or  Washington, 

300 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      301 

and  all  without  the  glamor  that  rests  upon  the  brows  of  suc- 
cessful military  chieftains. 

Of  Mr.  Lincoln's  predecessors  in  the  Presidential  office, 
two  only,  Washington  and  Jefferson,  can  be  regarded  as  his- 
torical persons  in  a  large  view  of  history.  The  author  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  so  identified  with  the  history 
of  the  country  that  that  history  cannot  outlast  his  name  and 
fame. 

As  the  author  of  that  Declaration  and  as  the  exponent  of 
new  and  advanced  ideas  of  government,  Jefferson  was  elected 
to  the  Presidency,  but  his  administrations,  excepting  only 
the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  were  not  marked  by  distin- 
guished ability,  nor  were  they  attended  or  followed  by  results 
which  have  commanded  the  favorable  opinion  of  succeeding 
generations. 

Washington  had  no  competitors.  The  gratitude  of  his 
countrymen  rebuked  all  rivalries.  He  was  borne  to  the  Presi- 
dency by  a  vote  quite  unanimous,  and  he  was  supported  in 
the  discharge  of  his  duties  by  a  confidence  not  limited  by  the 
boundaries  of  the  Republic. 

It  is  only  a  moderate  exaggeration  to  say  that  when  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  nominated  for  the  Presidency,  he  was  an  un- 
known man;  he  had  performed  no  important  public  service; 
his  election  was  not  due  to  personal  popularity,  nor  to  the 
strength  of  the  party  that  he  represented ;  but  to  the  divisions 
among  his  opponents. 

In  1862,  when  eleven  hostile  States  were  not  represented  in 
the  Government,  the  weakness  of  the  administration  was  such 
that  only  a  bare  majority  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
was  secured  after  a  vigorous  and  aggressive  campaign  on  the 
part  of  the  Republican  Party.  Thus  do  the  circumstances  and 
incidents  of  the  formative  period  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  career  il- 
lustrate and  adorn  the  events  that  distinguished  the  man,  the 
party  and  the  country. 


302  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

I  am  quite  conscious  that  in  our  attempt  to  give  Mr.  Lin- 
coln a  conspicuous  place  in  the  ranks  of  historical  personages, 
we  are  to  encounter  a  large  and  intelligent  public  opinion 
which  claims  that  distance  in  time  and  even  distance  in  space 
are  the  necessary  conditions  of  a  wise  and  permanent  decision. 

The  representatives  of  that  opinion  maintain  that  con- 
temporaries are  too  near  the  object  of  vision,  that  to  them 
a  comprehensive  view  is  impossible,  and  that  the  successive 
generations  of  one's  countrymen  may  be  influenced  by  in- 
herited passions,  or  by  transmitted  traditions. 

Some  of  us  were  Mr.  Lincoln's  contemporaries,  and  one 
and  all  we  are  his  countrymen,  and  in  advance  we  accept  joy- 
fully any  qualifications  of  our  opinions  that  may  be  made 
in  other  lands  or  by  other  ages,  if  qualifying  facts  shall  be 
disclosed  hereafter.  But  nearness  of  observation,  and  a 
knowledge  of  the  events  with  which  Mr.  Lincoln's  public  life 
was  identified,  may  have  given  to  his  associates  and  co- 
workers opportunities  for  a  sound  judgment  that  were  not 
possessed  by  contemporary  critics  and  historians  of  other 
lands,  and  that  the  students  of  future  times  will  be  unable  to 
command. 

The  recent  practical  improvements  in  the  art  of  printing, 
the  telegraph  and  the  railway,  have  furnished  to  mankind 
the  means  of  reaching  safe  conclusions  in  all  matters  of  im- 
portance, including  biography  and  history,  with  a  celerity 
and  certainty  which  to  former  ages  were  unknown.  In  these 
five  and  twenty  years,  since  the  death  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
there  has  been  a  wonderful  exposition  of  the  events  and 
circumstances  of  the  stupendous  contest  in  which  he  was  the 
leading  figure,  and  all  that  knowledge  is  now  consummated 
on  the  pages  of  Nicolay  and  Hay's  complete  and  trust- 
worthy history.  Of  the  minor  incidents  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
career,  time  and  research  will  disclose  many  facts  not  now 
known,  which  may  lend  coloring  to  a  character  whose  main 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      303 

features,  however,  cannot  be  changed  by  time  nor  criticism. 
The  nature  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  services  we  can  comprehend,  but 
their  value  will  be  more  clearly  realized  and  more  highly  ap- 
preciated by  posterity.  As  to  the  nature  of  those  services 
the  judgment  of  his  own  generation  is  final — it  can  never  be 
reversed.  Indeed,  it  may  be  asserted  of  historical  personages 
generally,  that  the  judgment  of  contemporaries  is  never  re- 
versed. Attempts  have  been  made  to  reverse  the  judgment  of 
contemporaries,  in  the  cases  of  Judas  Iscariot,  of  Henry  the 
Eighth,  and  of  Shakespeare,  and  I  venture  the  assertion  that 
all  these  attempts  have  failed,  most  signally.  In  our  own 
country  there  have  been  no  reversals.  Modifications  of 
opinions  there  have  been — growth  in  some  cases,  decrease  in 
others,  but  absolute  change  in  none.  The  country  has  grown 
towards  Hamilton  and  away  from  Jefferson.  They  are,  how- 
ever, as  they  were  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  the 
representatives  of  antagonistic  ideas  in  government,  but  their 
common  patriotism  is  as  yet  unchallenged.  It  is  the  fate  of 
those  who  take  an  active  part  in  public  affairs,  to  be  mis- 
judged during  their  lives,  but  death  softens  the  asperities  of 
political  and  religious  controversies  and  tempers  the  judgment 
of  those  who  survive.  Franklin,  Washington,  Jackson,  Clay 
and  Webster,  are  to  this  generation  what  they  were  to  the 
survivors  of  the  respective  generations  to  which  they  be- 
longed. Mr.  Calhoun  has  suffered  by  the  attempt  to  make  a 
practical  application  of  his  ideas  of  government,  but  the  na- 
ture and  dangerous  character  of  those  ideas  were  as  fully 
understood  at  the  time  of  his  death  as  they  are  at  the  present 
moment. 

I  pass  over  as  unworthy  of  serious  consideration  the  de- 
tractions and  attacks,  sometimes  thoughtless,  and  sometimes 
malicious,  to  which  Mr.  Lincoln  was  subject  during  his  ad- 
ministration. He  made  explanations  and  replied  to  these 
detractions  and  attacks  only  when  they  seemed  to  put  in  peril 


304  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

the  fortunes  of  the  country;  but  when  he  made  repHes,  there 
were  none  found,  either  among  his  poHtical  friends  or  his 
poHtical  enemies  who  were  capable  of  making  an  adequate 
answer.  Consult,  as  we  may  consult,  his  correspondence  in 
regard  to  the  transit  of  troops  through  Maryland,  in  regard 
to  the  invasion  of  Virginia,  in  case  the  city  of  Washington 
should  be  attacked  or  menaced  from  the  right  bank  of  the 
Potomac,  in  regard  to  the  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  the 
write  of  Jmbeas  corpus,  in  regard  to  the  arrest  of  Vallandig- 
ham,  in  regard  to  our  foreign  relations,  and,  finally,  consult 
his  numerous  papers  in  regard  to  the  objects  for  which  the 
war  should  be  prosecuted,  and  the  means,  as  well,  by  which 
it  could  be  prosecuted.  Consider,  also,  that  this  work  was 
done  by  a  man  called  to  the  head  of  an  administration  that 
had  no  predecessor,  to  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  a 
government  distracted  by  civil  war,  its  navy  scattered,  its 
treasury  bankrupted,  its  foreign  relations  disturbed  by  a  tra- 
ditional and  almost  universal  hostility  to  republican  institu- 
tions, and  all  while  he  was  threatened  constantly  by  an  adverse 
public  judgment  in  that  section  of  the  country  in  which  his 
hopes  rested  exclusively.  And  consider,  also,  that  Mr.  Lin- 
coln had  had  little  or  no  experience  on  the  statesmanship  side 
of  his  political  career,  that  as  an  attorney  and  advocate  he 
had  dealt  only  with  local  and  municipal  laws;  that  he  was 
separated  by  circumstances  from  a  practical  acquaintance  with 
maritime  and  international  jurisprudence,  and  yet  consider 
further  with  what  masterful  force  he  rebuked  timid  or  un- 
trustworthy friends  who  would  have  abandoned  the  contest 
and  consented  to  the  independence  of  the  seceding  States,  in 
the  vain  hope  that  time  might  aid  in  the  recovery  of  that 
which  by  pusillanimity  had  been  lost;  with  what  serenity  of 
manner  he  put  aside  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Seward  that  war 
should  be  declared  against  France  and  Spain  as  a  means  of 
quieting  domestic  difficulties  which  were  even  then  repre- 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      305 

sented  by  contending  armies ;  with  what  calmness  of  mind  he 
laid  aside  Mr.  Greeley's  letter  of  despair  and  self-reproach  of 
July  29,  1 86 1,  and  proceeded  with  the  preparation  of  his  pro- 
gramme of  military  operations  from  every  base  line  of  the 
armies  of  the  Republic;  with  what  skill  and  statesmanlike 
foresight  he  corrected  Mr.  Seward's  letter  to  Mr.  Adams  in 
regard  to  the  recognition  by  Great  Britain  of  the  belligerent 
character  of  the  Confederate  States;  and,  finally,  consider 
with  what  firmness  and  wisdom  he  annulled  the  proclamations 
of  Fremont  and  Hunter,  and  assumed  to  himself  exclusively 
the  right  and  the  power  to  deal  with  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  rebellious  States.  In  what  other  time,  to  what  other  ruler 
have  questions  of  such  importance  been  presented,  and  under 
circumstances  so  difficult?  And  to  what  other  ruler  can  we 
assign  the  ability  to  have  met  and  to  have  managed  success- 
fully all  the  difficult  problems  of  the  Civil  War  ?  It  cannot  be 
claimed  for  Mr.  Lincoln  that  he  had  had  any  instructive  mili- 
tary experience,  or  that  he  had  any  technical  knowledge  of 
the  military  art;  but  it  may  be  said  with  truth  that  his  cor- 
respondence with  the  generals  of  the  army,  and  his  memo- 
randa touching  military  operations  indicate  the  presence  of 
a  military  quality  or  faculty,  which  in  actual  service  might 
have  been  developed  into  talent  or  even  genius.  His  letter  to 
General  McClellan,  of  October  13,  1862,  is  at  once  a  memor- 
able evidence  and  a  striking  illustration  of  his  faculty  on  the 
military  side  of  his  official  career.  He  sets  forth  specifically, 
and  in  the  alternative,  two  plans  of  operation,  and  with  skill 
and  caustic  severity  he  contrasts  the  inactivity  and  delays  of 
General  McClellan,  with  the  vigor  of  policy  and  activity  of 
movement  which  characterized  the  campaign  on  the  part  of 
the  enemy.  He  brings  in  review  the  facts  that  General  Mc- 
Clellan's  army  was  superior  in  numbers,  in  equipment,  and  in 
all  the  material  of  war.  The  President  in  conclusion  said: 
*'  this  letter  is  not  to  be  considered  as  an  order,"  and  yet  it  is 


3o6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

difficult  to  reconcile  the  continued  inactivity  of  General  Mc- 
Clellan  with  the  claim  of  his  friends  that  he  was  a  patriotic, 
not  to  say  an  active,  supporter  of  the  cause  of  the  Union. 
With  that  letter  in  hand  a  patriotic  and  sensitive  commander 
would  have  acted  at  once  upon  one  of  the  alternatives  pre- 
sented by  the  President,  or  he  would  have  formed  a  plan  of 
campaign  for  himself  and  ordered  a  movement  without  delay, 
or  he  would  have  asked  the  President  to  relieve  him  from 
duty.  No  one  of  these  courses  was  adopted,  and  the  policy 
of  inactivity  was  continued  until  Lee  regained  the  vantage 
ground  which  he  abandoned  when  he  crossed  the  Potomac 
into  Maryland.  It  is  at  this  point,  and  in  this  juncture  of 
affairs  that  the  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  requires  the  explanation 
of  a  friendly  critic.  The  historian  of  the  future  may  wonder 
at  the  procrastination  of  the  President.  He  may  criticize  his 
conduct  in  neglecting  to  relieve  McClellan  when  it  was  ap- 
parent that  he  would  not  avail  himself  of  the  advantages  that 
were  presented  by  the  victory  at  Antietam.  The  explanation 
or  apology,  is  this,  in  substance:  The  Army  of  the  Potomac 
had  been  created  under  the  eye  of  McClellan  and  the  officers 
and  men  were  devoted  to  him  as  their  leader  and  chief.  They 
had  had  no  opportunity  for  instituting  comparisons  between 
him  and  other  military  men.  After  Pope's  defeat,  the  army 
had  been  unanimous,  substantially,  in  the  opinion  that  Mc- 
Clellan should  be  again  placed  in  command.  The  President 
had  yielded  to  that  opinion  against  his  own  judgment, 
and  against  the  unanimous  opinion  of  his  Cabinet.  Having 
thus  yielded,  it  was  wise  to  test  McClellan  until  the  confi- 
dence of  the  army  and  the  country  should  be  impaired,  or, 
as  the  President  hoped  would  be  the  result,  until  McClellan 
should  satisfy  the  Administration  and  the  army,  that  he  was 
equal  to  the  duty  imposed  upon  him.  Hence  the  delay  until 
the  5th  of  November,  when  McClellan  was  relieved,  finally, 
from  the  military  service  of  the  country. 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      307 

It  was  known  to  those  who  were  near  President  Lincoln, 
that  he  was  a  careful  student  of  the  war  maps  and  that  he 
had  daily  knowledge  of  the  position  and  strength  of  our 
armies.  I  recall  the  incident  of  meeting  President  Lincoln 
on  the  steps  of  the  Executive  Mansion  at  about  eleven  o'clock 
in  the  evening  of  the  day  when  the  news  had  but  just 
reached  Washington  that  Grant  had  crossed  the  Black  River 
and  that  the  army  was  in  the  rear  of  Vicksburg.  The  Presi- 
dent was  returning  from  the  War  Office  with  a  copy  of  the 
despatch  in  his  hand.     I  said : — 

"  Mr.  President,  have  you  any  news?  "   He  said  in  reply: 

**  Come  in,  and  I  will  tell  you." 

After  reading  the  despatch,  the  President  turned  to  his 
maps  and  traced  the  line  of  Grant's  movements  as  he  then 
understood  and  comprehended  those  movements.  That  night 
the  President  became  cheerful,  his  voice  took  on  a  new  tone — 
a  tone  of  relief,  of  exhilaration — and  it  was  evident  that  his 
faith  in  our  ultimate  success  had  been  changed  into  absolute 
confidence.  In  the  dark  days  of  1862  he  had  never  despaired 
of  the  Republic,  when  others  faltered,  he  was  undismayed. 
He  put  aside  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Seward  that  he  should 
surrender  the  chief  prerogative  of  his  office;  he  rebuked  the 
suggestion  of  General  Hooker  that  he  should  declare  himself 
dictator;  and  he  treated  with  silent  contempt  the  advice  of 
General  McClellan,  from  Harrison's  Landing,  in  July,  1862, 
that  the  President  should  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  army 
with  a  general  in  command,  on  whom  he  could  rely,  and  thus 
assume  the  dictatorship  of  the  Republic.  He  asserted  for  him- 
self every  prerogative  that  the  laws  and  the  Constitution  con- 
ferred upon  him,  and  he  declined  to  assume  any  power  not 
warranted  by  the  title  of  office  which  he  held.  He  was  reso- 
lute in  his  purpose  to  perform  every  duty  that  devolved  upon 
him,  but  he  declared  that  the  responsibility  of  preserving  the 
Government  rested  upon  the  people. 


3o8  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Of  the  officers  who  successively  were  at  the  head  of  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac,  none  ever  possessed  his  entire  confi- 
dence, until  General  Grant  assumed  that  command,  in  person. 
His  letter  to  General  Grant  when  he  entered  upon  the  Cam- 
paign of  the  Wilderness  contains  conclusive  evidence  that  his 
confidence  was  given  to  that  officer,  without  reservation. 

Turning  again  to  the  civil  side  of  his  administration,  con- 
sider the  steps  by  which  he  led  the  country  up  to  the  point 
where  it  was  willing  to  accept  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
States  engaged  in  the  rebellion.  History  must  soon  address 
itself  to  generations  of  Americans  who  will  have  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  institution  of  slavery  as  an  existing  fact. 
Indeed,  at  the  present  moment,  more  than  two  thirds  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States  have  no  memory  of  the  time 
when  slavery  was  the  dominating  force  in  the  politics  of  the 
country,  when  it  was  interwoven  in  the  daily  domestic  life  of 
the  inhabitants  of  fifteen  States;  when  it  muzzled  the  press, 
perverted  the  Scriptures,  compelled  the  pulpit  to  become  its 
apologist,  and  when  successive  generations  of  statesmen  were 
brought  down  on  an  "  equality  of  servitude  "  before  an  irre- 
sponsible and  untitled  oligarchy. 

As  early  as  1839,  Mr.  Clay  estimated  the  value  of  the  slaves 
at  $1,200,000,000,  and  upon  the  same  basis,  their  value  in 
i860,  exceeded  $2,000,000,000.  This  estimate  conveys  only 
an  inadequate  idea  of  the  power  of  slavery  and  it  presents 
only  an  imperfect  view  of  the  difficulties  which  confronted 
Mr.  Lincoln  in  1861  and  1862.  Delaware,  Maryland,  West 
Virginia,  Kentucky  and  Missouri  were  slave  States,  and  all 
of  them,  with  the  exception  of  Delaware,  were  hesitating  be- 
tween secession  and  the  cause  of  the  Union.  They  were  in 
favor  of  the  Union,  if  slavery  could  be  saved  with  the  Union, 
but  it  was  doubtful  in  all  the  year  1861,  whether  those  States 
could  be  held,  to  the  "  Lincoln  Government "  as  it  was  de- 
risively called,  if  the  abolition  of  slavery  were  a  recognized 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      309 

part  of  our  public  policy.  Nor  is  this  even  yet  a  full  state- 
ment of  the  difficulties  which  confronted  Mr.  Lincoln.  With 
varying  degrees  of  intensity,  the  Democratic  Party  of  the 
North  sympathized  with  the  South  in  its  attempts  to  dissolve 
the  Union.  During  the  entire  period  of  the  war,  New  York, 
Ohio  and  Indiana  were  doubtful  States,  and  Indiana  was  only 
kept  in  line  by  the  active  and  desperate  fidelity  of  Oliver  P. 
Morton.  In  the  presence  of  these  difficulties  Mr.  Lincoln 
recommended  the  purchase  of  all  the  slaves  in  the  States  not 
in  rebellion ;  then  he  suggested  the  deportation  of  the  manu- 
mitted slaves  and  the  free  blacks,  to  Central  America,  and  for 
this  purpose  an  appropriation  was  made ;  then  came  the  propo- 
sition to  give  pecuniary  aid  to  States  that  might  voluntarily 
make  provision  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  then  came, 
finally,  the  statute  of  July,  1862,  by  which  slaves  captured, 
and  the  slaves  of  all  persons  engaged  in  the  rebellion  were  de- 
clared to  be  free.  It  is  not  probable  that  Mr.  Lincoln  enter- 
tained the  opinion  that  these  measures,  one  or  all,  would  se- 
cure the  complete  abolition  of  slavery,  but  they  gave  to  the 
slave-holders  of  the  border  States  an  opportunity  to  obtain 
compensation  for  the  loss  of  their  slaves,  and  the  pendency 
of  these  propositions  occupied  the  attention  of  the  country 
while  the  formative  processes  were  going  on,  which  matured 
finally  in  the  opinion  that  slavery  and  the  Union  could  no 
longer  co-exist.  In  the  same  time  the  country  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  separation  and  continuous  peace  were  impos- 
sible. The  alternative  was  this :  Slavery,  a  division  of  terri- 
tory, and  a  condition  of  permanent  hostility  on  the  one  side; 
and  on  the  other,  a  union  of  States,  domestic  peace,  a  govern- 
ment of  imperial  power,  with  equality  of  citizenship  in  the 
States  and  an  equality  of  States  in  the  Union.  Thus  his 
measures,  which  were  at  once  measures  of  expediency  and  of 
delay,  prepared  the  public  mind  to  receive  his  monitory 
Proclamation  of  September  1862.     In  that  time  the  border 


310  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

States  had  come  to  realize  the  fact  that  the  negroes  were  no 
longer  valuable  as  property,  and  they  therefore  accepted 
emancipation  as  a  means  of  ending  the  controversy.  To  the 
Republicans  of  the  North,  the  Proclamation  was  a  welcome 
message ;  to  the  Democrats  it  was  a  result  which  they  had  pre- 
dicted, and  against  which  they  had  in  vain  protested.  But 
the  controversy  would  not  have  ended  with  the  war.  Slavery 
existed  in  the  States  that  had  not  participated  in  the  rebellion, 
and  the  legality  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  might  be 
drawn  in  question  in  the  courts.  One  thing  more  was  wanted : 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  abolishing  slavery  every- 
where within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Government.  This  was 
secured  after  a  protracted  struggle,  and  the  result  was  due 
in  a  pre-eminent  degree  to  the  personal  and  official  influence 
of  Mr.  Lincoln.  In  one  phrase  it  may  be  said  that  every 
power  of  his  office  was  exerted  to  secure  the  passage,  in  the 
Thirty-eighth  Congress,  of  the  resolution,  by  which  the  pro- 
posed amendment  was  submitted  to  the  States.  Mr.  Lincoln 
did  not  live  to  see  the  consummation  of  his  great  undertaking, 
in  the  cause  of  Freedom,  but  the  work  of  ratification  by  the 
States  was  accelerated  by  his  death,  and  on  the  i8th  day  of 
December,  1865,  M^-  Seward,  then  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States,  made  proclamation  that  the  amendment  had 
been  ratified  by  twenty-seven  of  the  thirty-six  States  then 
composing  the  Union,  and  that  slavery  and  involuntary  servi- 
tude were  from  that  time  and  forever  forth  impossible  within 
our  limits.  Such  was  then  the  universal  opinion  in  all 
America.  It  was  our  example  that  wrought  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  Brazil,  and  in  colonies  of  Spain  and  Portugal;  it 
has  led  to  the  extermination  of  the  trans- Atlantic  slave  trade, 
and  it  was  an  inspiration  to  the  nations  of  Europe  in  their 
effort  to  destroy  the  traffic  in  human  beings  on  the  continent 
of  Africa. 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      311 

There  is  an  aspect  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  career,  which  must  at- 
tract general  attention  and  command  universal  sympathy. 
His  loneliness  in  his  office  and  in  the  performance  of  his  duties 
is  deeply  pathetic.  It  is  true  that  Congress  accepted  and  en- 
dorsed his  measures  as  they  were  presented  from  time  to  time, 
but  there  were  bitter  complaints  on  account  of  his  delays  on 
the  slavery  question,  and  not  infrequently  doubts  were  ex- 
pressed as  to  the  sincerity  of  his  avowed  opinions.  There 
were  little  intrigues  in  Congress,  and  personal  aspirations  in 
the  Cabinet  in  regard  to  the  succession.  Of  the  commanders 
of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  from  McDowell  to  Meade,  each 
and  all  had  failed  to  win  victories,  or  they  had  failed  to  secure 
the  reasonable  advantages  of  victories  won.  There  were 
divisions  in  the  Cabinet  which  were  aggravated  by  personal 
rivalries.  On  one  occasion,  leading  Republican  members  of 
Congress  engaged  in  a  movement  for  a  change  in  the  Cabinet ; 
a  movement  which  was  without  a  precedent  and  wholly  desti- 
tute of  justification  under  our  system  of  government. 

His  want  of  faith  in  his  Cabinet  was  shown  in  his  pre- 
liminary statement  when  he  proceeded  to  read  the  Proclama- 
tion of  Emancipation.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  then  about  to  take 
the  most  important  step  ever  taken  by  a  President  of  the 
United  States  and  yet  he  informed  the  men,  the  only  men 
whose  opinions  he  could  command  by  virtue  of  his  office, 
that  the  main  question  was  not  open  for  discussion ;  that  the 
question  had  been  by  him  already  decided,  and  that  sugges- 
tions from  them  would  be  received  only  in  reference  to  the 
formalities  of  the  document. 

It  may  be  the  truth,  and  our  estimation  of  Mr.  Lincoln  would 
not  be  lowered,  if,  indeed,  it  were  shown  to  be  the  truth,  that 
he  chose  to  act  upon  his  own  judgment  in  a  matter  of  the 
supremest  gravity,  and  in  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
the  sole  responsibility  was  upon  him.    On  the  great  question 


312  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

of  the  abolition  of  slavery  his  mind  reached  a  definite  con- 
clusion, a  conclusion  on  which  he  could  act,  but  neither  too 
early  nor  too  late.  The  Proclamation  was  issued  at  a  moment 
when  the  exigencies  of  the  war  justified  its  issue  as  a  military 
necessity,  and  when,  as  a  concurrent  fact,  the  public  mind  was 
first  prepared  to  receive  it,  and  to  give  to  the  measure  the 
requisite  support. 

Mr.  Lincoln  prepared  the  way  for  the  reorganization  of  the 
government.  Under  him  the  old  order  of  things  was  over- 
thrown and  the  introduction  of  a  new  order  became  possible. 
Through  his  agency  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
has  been  brought  into  harmony  with  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence. The  system  of  slavery  has  perished,  the  insti- 
tutions of  the  country  have  been  reconciled  to  the  principles 
of  freedom,  and  in  these  changes  we  have  additional  guaran- 
tees for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union. 

A  just  eulogy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is  a  continuing  encomium  of 
the  Republican  Party.  By  the  election  of  i860  he  became 
the  head  of  that  party  and  during  the  four  years  and  more  of 
his  official  life  he  never  claimed  to  be  better  nor  wiser  than 
the  party  with  which  he  was  identified.  From  first  to  last 
he  had  the  full  confidence  of  the  army  and  of  the  masses  of 
the  voters  in  the  Republican  Party,  and  of  that  confidence  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  always  assured.  Hence  he  was  able  to  meet  the 
aspirations  of  rivals  and  the  censures  of  the  disappointed  with 
a  good  degree  of  composure.  To  the  honor  of  the  masses 
of  the  Republican  Party  it  can  be  said  that  they  never  faltered 
in  their  devotion  to  the  President  and  in  that  devotion  and  in 
the  fidelity  of  the  President  to  the  principles  of  the  party  were 
the  foundations  laid  on  which  the  greatness  of  the  country 
rests. 

The  measure  of  gratitude  due  to  Mr.  Lincoln  and  to  the 
Republican  Party  may  be  estimated  by  a  comparison  of  the 
condition  of  the  country  when  we  accepted  power  in  March, 


LINCOLN  AS  AN  HISTORICAL  PERSONAGE      313 

1861,  with  its  condition  in  1885,  ^^d  in  1893,  when  we  yielded 
the  administration  to  the  successors  of  the  men  who  had  well- 
nigh  wrecked  the  Government  in  a  former  generation. 

The  Republican  Party  found  the  Union  a  mass  of  sand; 
it  left  it  a  structure  of  granite.  It  found  the  Union  a  by- 
word among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  it  left  it  illustrious  and 
envied,  for  the  exhibition  of  warlike  powers,  for  the  develop- 
ment of  our  industrial  and  financial  resources  in  times  of 
peace,  for  the  unwavering  fidelity  with  which  every  pecuniary 
obligation  was  met;  for  the  generous  treatment  measured 
out  with  an  unstinted  hand  to  the  conquered  foe ;  and,  finally, 
for  the  cheerful  recognition  of  the  duty  resting  upon  the  Re- 
publican Party  and  upon  the  country  to  enfranchise,  to  raise 
up,  to  recreate  the  millions  that  had  been  brought  out  of  bond- 
age. 

This  work  was  not  accomplished  fully  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  life, 
but  he  was  the  leader  of  ideas  and  policies  which  could  have 
no  other  consummation. 


At  the  end  it  must  be  said  of  Mr  Lincoln  that  he  was  a 
great  man,  in  a  great  place,  burdened  with  great  responsi- 
bilities, coupled  with  great  opportunities,  which  he  used  for 
the  benefit  of  his  country  and  for  the  welfare  of  the  human 
race.  Among  American  statesmen  he  is  conspicuously  alone. 
From  Washington  and  Grant  he  is  separated  by  the  absence 
on  his  part  of  military  service  and  military  renown.  On  the 
statesmanship  side  of  his  career,  there  is  no  one  from  Wash- 
ington along  the  entire  line  who  can  be  considered  as  the 
equal  or  the  rival  of  Lincoln. 

And  we  may  wisely  commit  to  other  ages  and  perhaps  to 
other  lands  the  full  discussion  and  final  decision  of  the  rela- 
tive claims  of  Washington  and  Lincoln  to  the  first  place  in 
the  list  of  American  statesmen. 


XLIV 

SPEECH  ON  COLUMBUS 

DELIVERED  AT  GROTON,  MASS.,  OCTOBER  21,   1 892 


w 


E  celebrate  this  day  as  the  anniversary  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  American  continent. 

'"The  hand  that  rounded  Peter's  dome, 
And  groined  the  aisles  of  Christian  Rome, 
Wrought  in  a  sad  sincerity; 
Himself  from  God  he  could  not  free; 
He  builded  better  than  he  knew." 

Of  these  lines  of  Emerson,  the  last  three  are  as  true  of 
Columbus,  as  of 

"  The  hand  that  rounded  Peter's  dome, 
And  groined  the  aisles  of  Christian  Rome," 

for,  he  too, 

"  Wrought  in  a  sad  sincerity; 
Himself  from  God  he  could  not  free; 
He  builded  better  than  he  knew." 

And  shall  we  therefore  say  that  he  is  not  worthy  of  praise, 
of  tribute,  of  memorials,  of  anniversary  days,  of  centennial 
years,  of  national  and  international  gatherings  and  exhibi- 
tions, that  in  some  degree  mankind  may  illustrate  and  dignify, 
if  they  will,  the  events  that  have  followed  the  opening  of  a 
new  world  to  our  advanced  and  advancing  civilization  ? 

In  great  deeds,  in  great  events,  in  great  names,  there  is  a 
sort  of  immortality,  an  innate  capacity  for  living,  a  tendency 
to  growth,  to  expansion,  and  thus  what  was  but  of  little  mo- 
ment in  the  beginning  is  seen,  often  after  the  lapse  of  years, 

314 


SPEECH  ON  COLUMBUS  315 

possibly  only  after  the  lapse  of  centuries,  to  have  been 
freighted  with  consequences  whose  value  can  only  be  meas- 
ured by  the  yearly  additions  to  the  sum  of  human  happiness. 

Franklin's  experiments  in  electricity  were  followed  at  once 
by  the  common  lightning-rod,  but  a  century  passed  before 
the  electrical  power  was  utilized,  and  made  subservient,  in 
some  degree,  to  the  control  of  men. 

Every  decade  of  three  centuries  has  added  to  the  greatness 
of  that  one  immortal  name  in  the  literature  of  the  whole 
English  speaking  race.  The  security  for  the  world  that  the 
name  of  Shakespeare  and  the  writings  of  Shakespeare  cannot 
die  may  be  found  in  the  selfishness,  the  intelligent  selfishness 
of  mankind,  which  will  struggle  constantly  to  preserve  and  to 
magnify  a  possession  which  if  once  lost,  could  never  be  re- 
gained. 

After  four  centuries  of  delay  we  have  come  to  realize,  with 
some  degree  of  accuracy,  the  magnitude  of  the  event  called 
the  Discovery  of  America.  Identified  with  that  event,  and  as 
its  author,  is  the  man  Columbus.  Involved  in  controversies 
while  living,  the  object  of  the  base  passions  of  envy,  hatred 
and  jealousy,  consigned  finally  to  chains  and  to  prison, 
and  in  death  ignorant  of  the  magnitude  of  the  discovery 
that  he  had  made,  there  seemed  but  slight  basis  for  the  con- 
jecture that  his  name  was  destined  to  become  the  one  im- 
mortal name  in  the  annals  of  modern  Italy  and  Spain. 

As  if  accident  and  fate  and  the  paltry  ambitions  of  men 
had  combined  to  rob  Columbus  of  his  just  title  to  fame,  the 
name  of  the  double  continent  that  he  discovered  was  given 
to  another.  To  that  other  the  name  remains,  but  the  con- 
tinent itself  has  become  the  continent  of  Columbus.  In  con- 
nection with  the  event  no  other  name  is  known,  and  so  it  will 
ever  be  in  all  the  centuries  of  the  future. 

In  these  years  we  are  inaugurating  a  series  of  centennial 
anniversary  celebrations  in  honor  of  Columbus,  and  in  testi- 


3i6  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

mony  of  the  importance  of  the  discovery  that  he  made.  This 
we  do  as  the  greatest  of  the  states  that  have  arisen  on  the 
continent  that  he  discovered,  and  I  delay  what  I  have  to  say 
of  Columbus  and  of  the  discovery  that  I  may  express  my 
regret  and  the  reasons  for  my  regret,  that  the  celebration 
and  the  ceremonies  have  not  been  made  distinctively  and  ex- 
clusively national.  In  this  I  do  not  disparage,  on  the  other 
hand  I  exalt,  the  public  spirit,  the  capacity  for  large  under- 
takings, the  will  and  the  courage  of  the  city  and  the  citizens 
of  Chicago  in  assuming  burdens  and  responsibilities  from 
which  any  other  city  on  this  continent  would  have  shrunk. 

My  point  is  this:  If  the  people  and  Government  of  the 
United  States  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  discovery  of  a 
continent — a  continent  in  which  one  of  the  great  governments 
of  the  world  has  found  an  abiding  place — was  worthy  of  a 
centennial  celebration,  then  the  conduct  of  the  celebration 
ought  not  to  have  been  left  to  the  care  of  any  community  less 
than  the  whole.  Nor  is  it  an  unworthy  thought  that  some- 
thing of  dignity  would  have  been  added  to  the  celebration  if 
the  nations  of  the  earth  could  have  been  invited  to  the  capital 
which  bears  the  name  of  the  discoverer  of  the  continent  and 
the  founder  of  the  Republic. 

There  are  occasions  which  confer  greatness  upon  an  orator. 
Such  are  revolutionary  periods,  the  overthrow  of  states,  radi- 
cal changes  in  a  long-settled  public  policy,  struggles  for 
power,  empire,  dominion.  These  and  kindred  exigencies  in 
the  affairs  of  men  and  states,  seem  to  create,  or  at  least  to 
furnish  opportunity  and  scope  for,  statesmen,  orators,  poets 
and  soldiers. 

This  peaceful  ceremony  in  peaceful  times,  of  which  we  now 
speak,  will  not  produce  orators  like  Patrick  Henry  and  James 
Otis  at  the  opening  of  our  Revolutionary  struggle,  like  Mira- 
beau  in  France,  or  Cicero  in  Rome,  pleading  for  a  dying  re- 


SPEECH  ON  COLUMBUS  317 

public,  or  Demosthenes  in  Athens  contending  hopelessly 
against  the  domination  of  one  supreme  will. 

An  orator  for  this  occasion  was  not  to  have  been  waited 
for,  he  was  to  have  been  sought  out  and  found  if  possible. 

If  Webster  were  living  and  in  the  fullness  of  his  powers, 
the  country  might  have  looked  to  him  for  an  oration  that 
would  have  so  linked  itself  with  the  anniversary  that  it  would 
have  been  recognized  in  every  succeeding  centennial  ob- 
servance. 

Turning  from  this  thought,  which  at  best,  can  only  serve 
as  a  standard  to  which  our  hopes  aspire,  I  venture  the  remark, 
that  there  is  not  one  of  our  countrymen  who,  by  the  studies 
of  his  life,  by  the  philosophical  qualities  of  his  mind,  by  the 
possession  in  some  large  measure  of  that  Miltonian  power  of 
imagination  which  Webster  exhibited,  is  qualified  for  the  su- 
preme task  which  I  have  thus  imperfectly  outlined. 

For  one  day  the  rumor  was  voiced  that  Castelar  of  Spain 
had  been  invited  to  deliver  the  oration  at  the  more  formal 
opening  of  the  exhibition  in  May  next.  That  rumor  has  not 
been  affirmed  nor  denied,  but  from  the  delay,  we  cannot  hope 
that  its  verification  is  now  possible. 

Historical  knowledge,  due  to  long  and  laborious  studies, 
and  the  spirit  of  historical  inquiry,  are  not  often  found  in 
the  same  person,  combined  with  argumentative  power  and 
the  quality  of  imagination  stimulated  by  an  emotional  nature. 
From  what  we  know  of  Emilio  Castelar  of  Spain,  it  may  be 
said  that  he  possesses  this  rare  combination  in  a  degree  be- 
yond any  other  living  man. 

In  the  year  1856  when  he  was  only  twenty-four  years  of 
age,  he  was  appointed,  after  a  competitive  contest,  to  the 
chair  of  philosophy  and  history  in  the  University  of  Madrid. 
During  his  professorship,  in  addition  to  other  work,  he  de- 
livered lectures  on  the  history  of  civilization. 


320  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

one  personage  to  whom  the  gratitude  of  mankind  is  due  for 
the  discovery  of  the  new  world.  Nor  do  we  enter  into  any 
inquiry  as  to  the  manner  of  man  that  Columbus  was  on  the 
moral  side  of  his  character.  We  know  that  he  was  an  en- 
thusiast, that  he  was  richly  endowed  with  the  practical  virtues 
of  patience,  of  perseverance,  of  continuing  fortitude  under 
difficulties,  and  we  know  that  neither  Spain,  nor  the  Church, 
nor  Pinzon  the  ship-builder  and  capitalist,  nor  all  of  them 
together  would  have  made  the  discovery  when  it  was  made. 
To  Columbus  they  were  essential,  but  without  Columbus  they 
were  nothing. 

To  the  wide  domain  of  history  may  be  left  the  inquiry  as 
to  the  truth  of  his  visit  to  Iceland  in  the  preceding  decade, 
his  knowledge  of  the  expeditions  of  the  Scandinavian  voy- 
agers to  Greenland  and  the  coasts  of  New  England  in  the 
tenth  and  eleventh  centuries,  and  his  theories  or  beliefs  con- 
cerning the  spherical  figure  of  the  earth. 

Whatever  might  have  happened  previous  to  the  voyage 
from  Palos,  and  whatever  might  have  been  the  extent  of 
Columbus'  knowledge,  the  discovery  of  America  for  the  pur- 
poses of  settlement  and  civilization,  was  made  by  Columbus 
himself  at  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening  of  October  ii,  O.  S. 
when  he  saw  the  shimmer  of  fire  on  the  Island  of  San  Salva- 
dor. That  fact  being  established,  the  fact  of  the  existence  of 
land  near  by  was  established  also.  The  sight  of  land  at  three 
o'clock  the  next  morning  was  not  the  discovery;  it  was  evi- 
dence only  of  the  reality  of  the  discovery  made  by  Columbus 
the  evening  before. 

In  these  four  hundred  years  the  empires  that  Spain  founded 
in  the  New  World  have  slipped  from  her  grasp;  the  church 
has  lost  its  temporal  power,  but  the  fame  of  Columbus  has 
spread  more  and  more  widely  and  his  claims  to  the  gratitude 
of  mankind  have  been  recognized  more  generally. 

At  the  end  of  each  coming  century,  and  for  many  centuries, 


SPEECH  ON  COLUMBUS  321 

no  one  can  foresay  how  many,  millions  on  millions  in  the 
Americas  and  in  Europe  will  unite  in  rendering  tribute  of 
praise  to  the  enthusiast  and  adventurer  whose  limited  ambi- 
tions for  himself  were  never  realized,  but  who  opened  to  man- 
kind the  opportunity  to  found  states  freed  from  the  domina- 
tion of  the  church  and  churches  freed  from  the  domination 
of  the  state. 

We  do  not  deceive  ourselves,  when  we  claim  for  the  United 
States  the  first  place  among  the  states  on  this  continent.  We 
are  the  first  of  American  states  in  population,  in  wealth,  in  our 
system  of  public  instruction,  in  our  means  of  professional  and 
technical  education,  in  the  application  of  science  to  the  practi- 
cal purposes  of  life,  and  finally,  in  experience  and  success  in 
the  business  of  government. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  by  any  of  us,  nor  should  the 
fact  be  overlooked  or  neglected  by  the  young  that  these  results 
have  been  gained  by  the  labors  and  sacrifices  of  our  ancestors, 
and  we  should  realize  that  the  task  of  preserving  what  has 
been  w^on,  is  the  task  that  is  imposed  upon  the  generations  as 
they  succeed  each  other  in  the  great  drama  of  national  life. 
Vain  and  useless  are  all  conjectures  as  to  the  future.  The 
coming  century  must  bring  great  changes — equal,  possibly,  to 
those  that  have  occurred  since  1792.  At  that  time  our  terri- 
tory did  not  extend  beyond  the  Mississippi  River,  our  popu- 
lation was  hardly  four  million,  our  national  revenues  were 
less  than  four  million  dollars  annually,  manufacturing  indus- 
tries had  not  gained  a  footing,  for  agricultural  products  there 
was  no  market,  the  trade  in  slaves  from  Africa  was  guaran- 
teed in  the  Constitution,  the  thirteen  States  had  not  outgrown 
the  disintegrating  influence  of  the  Confederation,  the  Post- 
Office  Department  was  not  organized,  and  the  National  Gov- 
ernment was  not  respected  for  its  power,  justice  or  benefi- 
cence, of  which  the  mass  of  people  knew  nothing. 

In  this  century  our  territory  has  been  enlarged  fourfold. 


322  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

our  population  is  eighteen  times  as  great  as  it  was  in  1792,  our 
revenues  have  been  multiplied  by  a  hundred,  and  the  con- 
vertible wealth  of  the  people  has  been  increased  in  a  greater 
ratio  even.  The  railway,  the  telegraphic,  the  telephonic 
systems  have  been  created.  The  dream  of  Shakespeare  has 
been  realized — we  have  put  a  girdle  round  about  the  Earth 
in  forty  minutes. 

More  than  all  else,  and  as  the  culmination  of  all  else,  we 
have  demonstrated  the  practicability  of  a  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people  and  for  the  people.  All  this  has  been 
made  possible  by  and  through  a  system  of  universal  public 
education — a  system  which  taxes  the  whole  people,  and  edu- 
cates the  whole  people  in  good  learning,  and  in  the  cardinal 
virtues  which  adorn,  dignify  and  elevate  the  individual  man 
and  furnish  the  only  security  for  progressive,  successful,  il- 
lustrious national  life. 

This  is  the  inheritance  to  which  the  generations  before  us 
are  born.  A  great  inheritance — a  great  inheritance  of  op- 
portunity, a  great  inheritance  of  power,  a  great  inheritance  of 
responsibility,  from  which  the  coming  generations  are  not  to 
shrink. 


XLV 

IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY 

THIS  paper  is  introduced  upon  two  grounds  mainly. 
It  sets  forth  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  fulness  the 
views  that  I  have  entertained  for  three  years  in  re- 
gard to  President  McKinley's  policy  in  the  acquisition  and 
control  of  the  islands  in  the  Caribbean  Sea  and  in  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  and  it  presents  a  history  of  my  relations  to  political 
movements  through  a  long  half  century. 

SPEECH  DELIVERED  AT  SALEM,  MASS.,  OCTOBER  1 8,  IQOO,  IN 
REPLY  TO  A  SPEECH  MADE  BY  THE  HONORABLE  WILLIAM 
H.  MOODY,  M.  C. 

A  truthful  statement  that  I  have  been  inconsistent  in  the 
opinions  that  I  have  held  and  advocated  upon  questions  of 
public  concern,  would  not  disturb  me  by  day,  nor  consign 
me  to  sleepless  nights. 

It  is  now  sixty  years  since  I  first  held  public  office  by  the 
votes  of  my  fellow-citizens.  In  that  long  period  of  time  my 
opinions  have  undergone  many  changes.  When  I  have  had 
occasion  to  address  my  fellow-citizens  upon  public  questions 
I  have  not  reviewed  my  previous  sayings  through  fear  that 
some  critic  might  arraign  me  for  inconsistency. 

I  have  considered  only  my  present  duty  in  relation  to  the 
questions  immediately  before  me. 

In  the  first  ten  or  fifteen  years  of  my  manhood  I  accepted 
political  economy  as  a  cosmopolitan  science  and  free  trade 
as  a  wise  policy  for  every  country.     My  views  in  favor  of 

3*3 


324  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

free  trade  for  the  United  States  are  set  forth  in  printed 
articles,  which  are  now  accessible.  They  are  at  the  service 
of  the  critics  and  of  the  advocates  of  free  trade.  Consistency 
is  not  always  a  virtue,  and  inconsistency  is  not  always  a  vice. 
Even  courts  of  justice  change  their  rulings  and  holdings 
when  they  find  themselves  in  error. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  reversed  its 
first  decision  in  the  cases  that  have  arisen  under  the  confisca- 
tion acts  of  1862,  and  in  other  cases  the  court  has  qualified 
its  opinions  from  time  to  time.  This  authority  is  valuable 
as  proving  or  as  tending  to  prove,  that  inconsistencies  in 
opinion  may  be  consistent  with  integrity  of  purpose. 

An  attempt  to  change  the  issue  while  the  trial  is  going  on 
is  not  infrequently  the  weak  device  of  misguided  advocates 
who  happen  to  be  charged  with  the  care  of  weak  causes. 

It  is  now  twenty  years  or  more  since  I  appeared  before 
Judge  Endicott  of  your  city  in  a  cause  between  a  trustee  and 
the  cestui  que  trust.  The  counsel  for  the  trustee  in  an  argu- 
ment of  considerable  length,  proceeded  to  demonstrate  the 
unwisdom,  the  incapacity,  indeed,  of  my  administration  of 
the  Treasury  Department.  I  made  no  attempt  to  meet  the 
new  issue,  and  the  Judge  gave  no  opinion  upon  it.  I  made 
an  effort  to  satisfy  the  Judge  that  the  trustee  was  withhold- 
ing money  that  belonged  to  my  clients,  and  Judge  Endicott 
so  held.  My  opponent  had  an  opportunity  to  argue  an  issue 
that  was  not  before  the  court,  and  his  client  was  doomed  to 
lose  his  case. 

A  cause  is  now  pending  before  the  American  people.  The 
issue  is  this :  Is  it  wise  and  just  for  us,  as  a  nation,  to  make 
war  for  the  seizure  and  government  of  distant  lands,  occupied 
by  millions  of  inhabitants,  who  are  alien  to  us  in  every  aspect 
of  life,  except  that  we  are  together  members  of  the  same 
human  family?  The  seriousness  of  this  issue  cannot  be  mag- 
nified by  the  art  and  skill  of  writers  and  speakers,  nor  can 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  325 

it  be  dwarfed  to  the  proportions  of  a  personal  controversy. 
Nor  does  it  follow  from  any  possible  construction  of  the 
Constitution  that  it  is  wise  and  just  for  the  American  people 
to  seize,  through  war,  and  to  govern  by  force,  the  hostile 
tribes  and  peoples  of  the  earth  whether  near  to  or  remote. 

The  advocates  of  weak  causes  have  two  methods  of  defence 
to  which  they  most  frequently  resort :  epithets  and  a  change 
of  issues. 

It  was  in  this  city  that  'Mr.  Webster  made  a  remark  that 
is  applicable  to  the  use  of  epithets  and  the  avoidance  of  issues. 
Mr.  Webster  had  come  to  this  city  to  aid  the  Attorney-General 
in  the  trial  of  Frank  and  Joseph  Knapp.  His  presence  was 
disagreeable  to  the  counsel  for  the  accused,  and  they  more 
than  intimated  that  he  had  been  brought  to  Salem  to  carry 
the  court  against  the  law,  and  to  hurry  the  jury  beyond  the 
evidence.  In  reply,  Mr.  Webster  referred  to  the  Goodridge 
trial,  in  which  he  had  appeared  for  the  accused,  and  he  said : 
"  I  remember  that  the  learned  head  of  the  Suffolk  Bar,  Mr. 
Prescott,  came  down  in  aid  of  the  officers  of  the  government. 
This  was  regarded  as  neither  strange  nor  improper.  The 
counsel  for  the  prisoners,  in  that  case,  contented  themselves 
with  answering  his  arguments,  as  far  as  they  were  able,  in- 
stead of  carping  at  his  presence."  This  is,  in  substance,  the 
demand  that  we  make  upon  the  supporters  of  the  war  in  the 
Philippines.  Let  them  cease  to  denounce  us  as  traitors;  let 
them  explain  the  facts  on  which  they  are  arraigned;  and  let 
them  answer  the  arguments  that  we  offer  in  defence  of  the 
Republic. 

Causes  may  be  lost  by  misinterpreting  or  misrepresenting 
the  issues,  or  by  undervaluing  the  character  and  ability  of  op- 
ponents, but  causes  are  not  often  won  by  such  expedients. 
The  political  issues  in  popular  governments  are  the  outcome 
of  measures  and  policies,  and  the  issues  can  be  changed  only 
by  a  change  of  policies  and  measures.    President  McKinley's 


326  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

administration  has  been  an  administration  of  new  policies  and 
new  measures,  and,  consequently,  it  is  an  administration  of 
new  issues — issues  that  will  remain  until  the  measures  and 
policies,  to  which  they  owe  their  origin,  have  been  abandoned. 
Therefore,  the  struggle  to  change  the  issues,  however  made, 
or  by  whomsoever  made,  is  a  vain  struggle. 

If,  in  this  year  1900,  it  could  be  proved  beyond  contro- 
versy that  in  the  year  1859,  I  had  maintained  the  doctrine  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  did  not  apply  to  the 
Territories,  and  that  in  the  year  1899  I  had  expressed  the 
opposite  opinion,  would  these  facts,  including  the  change  of 
opinion,  and  whether  considered  together  or  considered 
separately,  possess  any  value  argumentative,  or  otherwise, 
as  a  justification  of  President  McKinley  in  seizing  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  through  war,  and  in  attempting  to  govern  the 
inhabitants  by  force?  Is  it  of  any  consequence  when  this 
country  is  dealing  with  a  public  policy  of  which  war  is  the 
incident,  and  the  continuing  inevitable  incident,  whether  the 
opinions  that  one  man  may  have  entertained  one  and  forty 
years  ago  are  acceptable  opinions  now  that  the  one  and  forty 
years  have  passed  away?  Yet,  my  fellow-citizens,  this  is  the 
argument  which  the  representative  of  the  ancient  and  honored 
county  of  Essex  offers  to  you  and  to  the  country  in  justifica- 
tion of  a  policy  of  war  degenerating  at  times  into  brutal 
massacres,  carried  on  against  ten  million  people,  inhabitants 
of  a  thousand  islands,  ten  thousand  miles  from  our  shores, 
and  at  a  cost  of  four  million  dollars  a  week,  and  at  the  sacri- 
fice each  year  of  thousands  of  the  youth  of  America,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  health  and  happiness  of  tens  of  thousands 
more. 

Such  is  the  history  of  President  McKinley's  administration, 
and  such  is  the  defence  offered  by  the  representative  of  the 
county  of  Essex. 

There  may  have  been  no  sinister  design  in  the  attempt  to 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY        327 

demonstrate  my  inconsistency  upon  a  question  of  constitu- 
tional law.  I  do  not  assume  the  existence  of  personal  hos- 
tility. An  end  would  be  answered  if  you  and  others  could  be 
induced  to  believe  that  in  1859  I  had  so  construed  the  Con- 
stitution as  to  justify  President  McKinley  in  governing  the 
Philippine  Islands  as  though  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  did  not  exist.  Thus  do  my  opinions  receive  more  con- 
sideration from  an  opponent  than  they  could  command  at  the 
hands  of  a  friend. 

I  am  now  to  speak  more  directly  in  explanation  of  the 
opinion  that  I  gave  in  1859,  with  something  of  the  history 
of  the  circumstances  which  led  to  the  preparation  of  the  paper 
of  that  year.  It  is  an  error  to  assume  that  the  question 
whether  or  not  the  Constitution  extends  to  the  Territories, 
was  a  prominent  question,  in  the  period  of  the  anti-slavery 
controversy.  That  question  was  not  publicly  and  seriously 
discussed  on  either  side. 

The  controversy  was  conducted  upon  the  theory  that  the 
Territories  were  under  the  Constitution.  The  question  was 
this :  Can  a  slaveholder  move  from  a  slave  State  to  a  Terri- 
tory and  be  protected  under  the  Constitution  in  holding  his 
slaves  as  property? 

It  was  the  theory  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  Measure  of 
1820  and  it  was  also  the  theory  of  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850,  that  the  Constitution  neither  authorized  slavery  any- 
where nor  prohibited  it  anywhere.  The  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act  of  1854  recognized,  as  an  admitted  fact,  the  doctrine 
that  the  Constitution  extended  to  the  Territories,  and  it  as- 
serted as  a  conclusion  of  law  and  as  a  public  policy,  the  doc- 
trine that  the  Constitution  "  should  have  the  same  force  and 
effect  within  the  Territory  of  Kansas  as  elsewhere  within 
the  United  States."  Thus  it  was  maintained  by  the  friends 
of  the  compromise  measures  that  the  Constitution  neither 
authorized  slavery  in  the  Territories  nor  prohibited  it.    This 


328  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

view  of  the  Constitution  was  accepted  by  the  opponents  of 
slavery. 

The  Constitution  did  not  authorize  slavery  in  the  States 
nor  did  it  prohibit  slavery  in  the  States.  Until  the  Dred 
Scott  Decision,  the  controversy  proceeded  upon  the  idea  that 
States  and  Territories  were  alike  under  the  Constitution,  and 
that  by  the  Constitution  slavery  was  neither  authorized  nor 
prohibited  in  any  State,  nor  in  any  Territory  of  the  Union. 

Inasmuch  as  at  that  time  slavery  was  not  prohibited  under 
the  Constitution,  there  was  a  general  agreement  in  the  propo- 
sition that  Congress  might  authorize  slavery  in  the  Territories 
and  that  Congress  might  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories. 
One  party  contended  for  its  authorization,  the  other  party 
demanded  its  prohibition.  On  this  issue  the  contest  was 
made  up.  From  first  to  last  the  contest  proceeded  upon  the 
theory,  on  all  sides  admitted  to  be  a  true  theory,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by  its  own  force,  applied 
to  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  In  that  opinion 
I  concurred. 

When  Mr.  Douglas  concluded  to  become  a  Presidential 
candidate,  he  broached  a  theory  of  constitutional  interpre- 
tation for  which  he  may  have  found  some  support  in  the 
Dred  Scott  Decision. 

His  theory  was  this:  The  Constitution  so  applies  to  the 
Territories  that  they  must  take  places  as  States  in  the  Amer- 
ican Union,  and  the  Constitution  also  requires  Congress  to 
accept  the  Territories  as  States,  and  with  such  institutions  as 
the  Territories,  when  on  their  way  to  Statehood,  might  choose 
to  establish. 

Hence  it  was,  that  in  the  article  in  reply  to  Mr.  Douglas,  I 
made  this  statement :  "  But  now  under  the  new  political  dis- 
pensation, these  thirty  million  can  have  no  opinion  concern- 
ing the  admission  of  States  which  may  have  established 
Catholicism,  Mohammedanism,  Polygamy  or  even  Slavery." 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  329 

I  interrupt  the  course  of  my  remarks  to  say  that  already 
in  the  PhiHppines  we  are  tolerating  and  supporting  slavery 
and  polygamy,  and  preparing  the  way  for  the  organization 
of  Catholic  and  Mohammedan  States,  and  their  admission 
into  the  American  Union. 

It  was  in  1859,  and  in  the  article  now  under  debate,  that  I 
used  this  language  as  a  fair  exposition  of  Mr.  Douglas' 
plans : 

"  The  people  of  a  Territory  have  all  the  rights  of  the 
people  of  a  State;  and  therefore  there  are  no  Territories  be- 
longing to  the  American  Union,  but  all  are  by  the  silent  nega- 
tive operation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  con- 
verted into  independent  sovereign  members  of  the  North 
American  Confederacy.  'We  commend  this  system  to  the 
advocates  of  popular  sovereignty.  It  offers  many  advantages. 
It  will  not  be  possible  for  the  people  or  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  to  resist  the  admission  of  new  States,  inasmuch 
as  their  consent  will  not  be  asked.  It  avoids  all  unpleasant 
issues.  It  provides  for  nev/  slave  States;  it  disposes  of 
Utah;  it  settles,  in  anticipation,  all  questions  that  may  grow 
out  of  the  annexation  of  the  Catholic  Mexican  States;  and 
it  permits  the  immigrants  from  the  Celestial  Empire  to  re- 
establish their  institutions,  and  take  their  places  as  members 
of  this  Imperial  Republic."  This  statement  of  Mr.  Douglas' 
policy  in  the  interest  of  slavery  is  not  a  far-away  prophecy 
of  the  doings  under  President  McKinley's  administration. 

I  have  reached  a  point  in  this  discussion  when  this  remark 
may  be  justified :  No  impartial  reader  of  my  article  of  1859 
can  fail  to  discover  that  the  discussion  did  not  involve  the 
question  now  raised.  The  issue  was  this :  Are  the  Territories 
bound  by  the  Constitution  to  become  States  in  the  American 
Union  against  the  judgment  of  the  people,  and  are  the  exist- 
ing States  bound  to  accept  a  new  State  and  that  without 
regard  to  its  institutions  ?    This  was  the  theory  of  Mr.  Doug- 


330  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

las,  and  it  was  a  theory  designed  to  provide  a  certain  way 
for  the  increase  of  slave  States.  My  argument  was  aimed 
at  that  policy. 

At  the  end  of  my  article  there  is  a  summary  by  proposi- 
tions which  contains  declarations  that  were  outside  of  the 
controversy  with  Mr.  Douglas. 

One  of  these  has  been  quoted,  and  quoted  in  error  as  evi- 
dence of  my  inconsistency,  I  read  the  proposition :  "  The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  may  be  extended  over  a 
Territory  by  the  treaty  of  annexation,  or  by  a  law  of  Con- 
gress, in  which  case  it  has  only  the  authority  of  law;  but 
the  Constitution  by  the  force  of  its  own  provisions  is  limited 
to  the  people  and  the  States  of  the  American  Union." 

In  this  general  proposition  there  are  several  minor  and 
distinct  propositions. 

1.  The  Constitution  may  be  extended  over  a  territory  by  a 
treaty  of  annexation.  This  is  now  my  distinct  claim  in 
regard  to  Porto  Rice  and  the  Philippines,  a  position  that  I 
have  uniformly  maintained. 

2.  The  Constitution  may  be  extended  to  a  territory  by  law, 
in  which  case  it  has  only  the  authority  of  law. 

As  to  this  statement  I  can  only  say  I  may  have  had  in  mind 
instances  of  such  legislation  as  may  be  found  in  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act. 

When  we  say  that  the  Constitution  of  its  own  force,  applies 
to  the  Territories,  we  refer  to  the  parts  that  are  applicable  to 
the  Territories  as  distinguishable  from  the  parts  that  relate 
to  States  exclusively.  It  is  a  provision  of  the  Constitution 
that 

"  No  State  shall  make  any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of 
contracts."  In  terms  this  limitation  does  not  extend  to  Ter- 
ritories. Congress  might  extend  the  limitation,  but  the  Act 
of  limitation  would  have  only  the  force  of  law. 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  331 

3.  "  The  Constitution  by  the  force  of  its  own  provisions 
is  limited  to  the  people  and  States  of  the  American  Union." 
This  is  only  a  declaration  that  the  Constitution  does  not 
apply  to  other  states  and  communities.  The  word  people 
includes  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories  as  well  as  the  in- 
habitants of  the  States.  If  there  could  have  been  a  doubt  in 
1859  of  the  validity  of  this  interpretation,  the  doubt  has  been 
removed  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  The  inhabitants  of 
Territories  are  thereby  made  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
are  brought  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Constitution,  and  as 
citizens  they  are  put  upon  an  equality  with  the  citizens  of  the 
States.  They  are  of  the  people  of  the  American  Union,  and 
as  such  they  are  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

These  are  the  opening  words  of  the  amendment : — 

"  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States  and 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  reside." 

We  have  no  subject  classes  in  America  excepting  only 
such  as  have  been  created,  temporarily,  as  I  trust,  in  Porto 
Rico  and  the  Philippine  Islands,  by  the  policy  of  President 
McKinley,  and  all  in  violation  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  which  reads  thus : 

"  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a 
punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 
convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United  States,  or  any  place 
subject  to  their  jurisdiction."  President  McKinley  claimed 
jurisdiction  over  the  Philippine  Islands  and  consequently  the 
inhabitants  are  entitled  to  the  benign  protection  of  this  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution.  There  cannot  be  any  form  of  in- 
voluntary servitude  imposed  upon  any  American  citizen  with- 
out a  violation  of  this  fundamental  law.  Hence  it  is  that 
the  administration  is  forced  to  deny  citizenship  to  the  in- 
habitants of  the  Islands  and  to  assert  the  claim  that  the  Presi- 


332  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

dent  and  Congress  may  govern  the  inhabitants  of  territories 
acquired  by  purchase,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Phihppine  Islands, 
or  by  conquest,  as  in  the  case  of  Porto  Rico,  as  they  might 
be  governed  if  the  Constitution  did  not  exist.  And  this,  we 
are  told  by  the  President  and  his  supporters,  is  not  imperial- 
ism, but  a  process  of  extending  the  blessings  of  liberty  and 
civilization  to  the  inferior  races  of  the  earth. 

The  claim  of  the  President  is  the  assertion  of  a  right  in 
Congress  to  establish  a  system  of  peonage  or  even  of  slavery 
in  Alaska,  Hawaii  and  the  rest.  Your  representative  finds 
himself  called  to  the  defence  of  this  doctrine.  Thus  is  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  made  of  none  effect  in  the 
Territories. 

The  character  of  President  McKinley's  policy  is  set  forth 
in  his  own  words  and  they  justify  the  charge  of  imperialism. 

In  his  speech  of  acceptance  he  said: — "The  Philippines 
are  ours,  and  American  authority  must  be  supreme  through- 
out the  Archipelago.  There  will  be  amnesty,  broad  and 
liberal,  but  no  abatement  of  our  rights,  no  abandonment  of 
our  duty ;  there  must  be  no  scuttle  policy."  What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  this  language?  Is  it  not  an  assertion  of  absolute,  un- 
conditional, permanent  supremacy  over  the  millions  of  the 
islands  ? 

Imperialism  is  not  a  word  merely.     It  is  a  public  policy. 

The  President  denounces  imperialism,  and  with  emphasis 
he  declares  that  we  are  all  republicans  in  America.  None  of 
us  are  imperialists. 

Our  answer  is  this:  In  the  language  that  I  have  quoted 
the  President  describes  himself  as  an  imperialist.  The  test 
of  Republicanism  is  the  Thirteenth  Amendment.  The  Presi- 
dent is  subjecting  ten  million  people  to  involuntary  subser- 
viency under  his  rule.  This,  by  whatever  name  called,  is  the 
imperialism  that  we  denounce. 

We  denounce  it  as  a  violation  of  a  provision  of  our  Con- 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  333 

stitution  that  was  gained  at  the  cost  of  the  lives  of  four 
hundred  thousand  men. 

We  denounce  it  as  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  ten  million 
human  beings  who  owe  no  allegiance  to  us.  Our  title !  you 
exclaim.  I  answer,  What  is  it  ?  A  title  to  rule  an  unwilling, 
revolutionary  people,  who.  at  the  time  our  title  was  acquired, 
were  demanding  of  Spain  the  enjo}Tnent  of  the  right  of  self- 
government.  That  right  was  well-nigh  gained  when  we  ac- 
cepted the  place  of  substitute  for  Spain.  Through  twenty 
months  of  war  we  have  been  engaged  in  a  fruitless  attempt 
to  subjugate  our  purchased  victims,  and  we  have  been  cajoled, 
continually,  by  the  declaration  that  the  v/ar  was  ended. 

If  we  accept  the  theory  of  the  President  that  our  title  to 
Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines  is  a  good  title,  then  that  title 
can  be  exercised  and  enjoyed  only  in  one  of  two  ways  under 
our  Constitution  and  the  example  that  has  been  set  in  the 
case  of  Cuba.  They  should  be  held  as  Territories,  on  the 
way  to  Statehood,  or  as  possessions  entitled  to  self-govern- 
ment without  delay  by  us.  Mr.  McKinley,  Senator  Lodge  and 
Mr.  Moody  say  neither  way  is  acceptable — the  lands  and  the 
people  are  ours.  They  have  no  rights  under  our  Constitu- 
tion. We  will  hold  them  subject  to  our  will  until  they  accept 
our  authority  and  recognize  our  right  to  rule  over  them,  and 
beyond  that  we  will  hold  them  until,  in  our  opinion,  they 
are  qualified  to  govern  themselves. 

The  doctrine  of  imperialism  is  again  set  forth  in  the  Presi- 
dent's letter  of  acceptance  of  September  8.  "  The  flag  of 
the  Republic  now  floats  over  these  islands  as  an  emblem  of 
rightful  sovereignty.  Will  the  Republic  stay  and  dispense 
to  their  inhabitants  the  blessings  of  liberty,  education  and  free 
institutions,  or  steal  away,  leaving  them  to  anarchy  or  im- 
perialism." 

Thus  the  President  is  engaged  in  dispensing  liberty  to 
conquered  peoples  instead  of  allowing  them  to  enjoy  liberty 


334  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

as  a  birthright.  He  is  dispensing  to  them  such  education  as 
he  thinks  they  ought  to  have,  instead  of  allowing  them  to 
decide  for  themselves  as  to  the  education  which  may  be  agree- 
able or  useful  to  them.  He  dictates  for  them  the  ''  free  in- 
stitutions "  which  in  his  opinion  are  best  adapted  to  their 
condition,  instead  of  allowing  them  the  freedom  to  choose 
their  own  institutions.  Thus  the  President  assumes  authority 
to  furnish  systems  of  education  and  institutions  of  govern- 
ment by  force,  denying  to  the  people  all  freedom  of  action  for 
themselves,  and  thereupon  he  declares  that  "  empire  has  been 
expelled  from  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines." 

Can  the  President  show  wherein  his  policy,  in  principle, 
differs  from  the  policy  of  Spain  ? 

Spain  was  engaged  in  war  to  compel  the  Filipinos  to  ac- 
cept Spanish  institutions  of  education  and  liberty.  We  are 
attempting  through  war  to  compel  the  Filipinos  to  accept 
American  institutions  of  education  and  liberty.  It  is  not  an 
answer  to  say,  what  may  be  true,  that  American  ideas  and 
systems  of  education  are  superior  to  Spanish  ideas  and  systems. 
In  each  case  there  is  compulsion.  In  each  case  there  is  a 
denial  of  freedom.  In  each  case,  there  is  the  same  exercise  of 
power.  In  each  case  there  is  the  same  demand  for  a  sub- 
servient class.  In  each  case  there  is  gross  undisguised  im- 
perialism. The  difference  is  to  the  advantage  of  Spain. 
Spain  was  consistent.  Her  policy  was  a  policy  of  imperial- 
ism;— a  policy  of  centuries. 

America  was  a  republic.  Self-government  was  at  the  basis 
of  all  her  institutions.  It  was  a  prominent  feature  of  her 
history.  Our  accusation  against  President  McKinley  is  this : 
He  turned  away  from  the  history  of  America,  he  disdained 
our  traditions,  and  he  reversed  the  policy  of  a  century. 

Mark  the  consequences  of  the  change.  In  other  days  we 
sympathized  with  Greece  in  its  struggle  for  self-government; 
we  denounced  the  suppression  of  liberty  in  Hungary,  and  in 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY         335 

the  opening  years  of  this  century  we  welcomed  the  provinces 
of  Central  and  South  America  as  they  emerged,  one  by  one, 
from  a  condition  of  imperial  vassalage,  and  took  their  places 
in  the  galaxy  of  Republican  States. 

If  in  this  year  1900,  America  had  sent  forth  one  word  of 
official  cheer  to  the  States  of  South  Africa,  the  act  would 
have  been  an  act  of  self-abasement  that  would  have  invited 
the  contempt  of  all  mankind. 

When  we  charge  imperialism  upon  the  administration  this 
question  is  put  exultingly :  "  Where  is  the  crown?  "  I  answer 
from  history.  England  waited  a  century,  after  the  conquests 
by  Clive  and  Hastings,  for  a  Beaconsfield  to  crown  Britain's 
Queen  "  Empress  of  the  Indies."  The  crown  is  but  a  bauble. 
Empire  means  vast  armies  employed  in  ignominious  service, 
burdensome  taxation  at  home,  and  ruthless  maladministra- 
tion of  afifairs  abroad. 

In  two  short  years  of  imperialism,  these  evils  have  ceased 
to  be  imaginative  merely,  and  they  have  taken  a  place  among 
the  unwelcome  realities  of  our  national  life. 

Before  I  close  this  discourse  I  shall  return  to  the  subjects 
that  I  have  now  introduced  to  your  attention,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  asking  you  to  foster  and  preserve  the  quality  of 
consistency  in  the  history  of  the  county  of  Essex. 

Mr.  Moody  introduced  two  topics  to  the  Essex  Club  of 
which  I  am  to  take  notice.  They  concern  me  personally,  but 
there  is  an  aspect  of  one  of  them  that  may  merit  public  at- 
tention. 

With  a  kindliness  of  spirit,  that  I  could  not  have  antici- 
pated, Mr.  Moody  attributes  my  failure  to  continue  in  the 
opinions  that  he  claims  were  entertained  by  me  in  1859,  to 
the  infirmities  incident  to  advancing  years.  He  thus  raises 
a  question  that  I  am  not  competent  to  discuss.  I  pass 
it  by. 

I  trust  that  Mr.  Moody  may  live  to  the  age  of  two  and 


336  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

eighty  years ;  that  his  experience  may  be  more  fortunate  than 
the  fate  that  he  attributes  to  me,  and  that  at  that  advanced 
period  of  his  Hfe  his  ability  to  interpret  the  Constitution  of  his 
country  will  not  be  less  than  it  now  is. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Moody,  as  it  appears  in  the  Transcript 
of  August  30,  closes  with  this  sentence:  "  He  at  least  might 
spare  the  epithets  to  the  party  that  has  showered  upon  him 
every  honor  within  its  gift,  except  the  presidency."  If  I  have 
applied  any  disparaging  epithet  to  the  Republican  Party,  my 
error  is  due  to  my  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
The  quotations  which  Mr.  Moody  has  made  from  my  speech 
at  the  Cooper  Institute  contain  a  declaration  in  two  forms  of 
expression,  which  may  have  led  Mr.  Moody  to  charge  me 
with  the  use  of  epithets.  I  find  nothing  else  on  which  his 
allegation  can  be  founded.     I  reproduce  the  quotations: 

"  President  McKinley  and  his  imperialistic  supporters 
through  two  steps  in  an  argument  have  deduced  an  erroneous 
conclusion  from  admitted  truths, 

"  (i)  Our  government  in  common  with  other  sovereign- 
ties has  a  right  to  acquire  territory. 

"  (2)  That  right  carries  with  it  the  right  to  govern  terri- 
tory so  acquired. 

"  From  these  propositions  they  deduce  the  false  conclusion 
that  Congress  may  indulge  a  full  and  free  discretion  in  the 
government  of  the  territories  so  acquired.  Herein  is  the 
error,  and  herein  is  the  usurpation." 

Again,  "  We  have  the  right  to  acquire  territory  and  we 
have  the  right  to  govern  all  territory  acquired,  but  we  must 
govern  it  under  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  exercise  of  those 
powers,  and  those  only,  which  have  been  conferred  upon  Con- 
gress by  the  Constitution.  Any  attempt  further  is  a  criminal 
usurpation." 

In  the  first  quotation  I  make  the  charge  that  President  Mc- 
Kinley, in  his  attempt  to  govern  the  Philippine  Islands  a^ 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  337 

though  the  Constitution  did  not  apply  to  them,  was  exercis- 
ing powers  not  granted  to  him  by  virtue  of  his  office. 

The  President  is  the  creature  of  the  Constitution,  and  his 
jurisdiction  is  measured  and  hmited  by  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Constitution. 

When  the  President  asserts  that  the  Philippine  Islands  are 
not  under  the  Constitution,  he  admits  that  the  Philippine 
Islands  are  not  within  his  jurisdiction.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  islands  are  within  his  jurisdiction,  it  follows  that 
his  right  of  jurisdiction  over  them  must  have  come  from  the 
presence  of  the  Constitution  itself. 

Let  there  be  no  misunderstanding  upon  one  point.  I  claim 
that  the  Philippine  Islands  are  under  the  Constitution  and 
that  the  President  may  exercise  in  and  over  the  islands  what- 
ever powers  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  may  have  placed 
in  his  hands. 

I  claim  further  that  as  a  right  on  the  part  of  the  Filipinos, 
and  as  a  policy  of  justice  and  wisdom  on  our  part,  we  should 
relinquish  our  title,  whatever  it  may  be,  and  allow  the  Fili- 
pinos to  enter  upon  the  work  of  governing  themselves. 

The  President  sets  up  the  doctrine  that  the  islands  are  not 
under  the  Constitution  and  that  they  may  be  governed  by  him 
outside  of  all  constitutional  restraints.  This  is  the  usurpation 
that  I  have  charged  upon  him,  but  not  upon  the  Republican 
Party  of  former  days.  Upon  the  basis  specified  the  charge 
remains.  It  is  not  an  epithet.  Let  the  charge  be  answered, 
or  otherwise,  let  the  President  and  the  supporters  of  his  policy 
abandon  the  doctrine  that  we  can  seize,  hold  and  govern  com- 
munities and  peoples  who  are  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
our  Constitution  and,  who,  consequently,  are  not  subject  to 
our  laws. 

I  have  said  that  the  President  and  his  supporters  are  im- 
perialists. If  the  word  is  descriptive  of  a  policy  then  the 
word  is  not  an  epithet. 


338  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

In  the  passage  that  I  have  quoted  from  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Moody  he  charges  me  in  fact,  if  not  in  form  of  words,  with 
a  violation  of  my  obligations  to  the  Republican  Party,  and 
upon  the  ground  that  the  party  "  has  showered  upon  me  every 
honor  within  its  gift  except  the  Presidency."  The  considera- 
tion that  I  have  received  from  the  Republican  Party  merits 
acknowledgement,  and  that  I  accord  without  reserve,  but 
it  cannot  exact  subserviency  from  me. 

On  public  grounds  I  ask  this  question :  Are  those  who  may 
hold  office  under  the  leadership  of  a  party,  to  be  held  by 
party  discipline  to  the  support  of  measures  and  policies  which 
they  condemn?  Freedom  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  speech 
are  of  more  value  than  public  office.  The  movement  for  the 
reform  of  the  civil  service,  is,  in  its  best  aspect,  but  an  at^ 
tempt  to  rescue  the  body  of  office  holders  from  the  tyranny 
and  discipline  of  party  and  of  party  leaders.  Thus  much 
upon  public  grounds,  but,  for  myself,  I  shall  not  seek  pro- 
tection under  a  general  policy. 

Never  for  a  moment  from  my  early  years  did  I  entertain 
the  thought  that  I  would  enter  public  life,  or  that  I  would 
continue  in  public  life,  as  a  pursuit  or  as  a  profession.  Hence, 
it  has  happened  that  I  have  never  asked  for  personal  support 
at  the  hands  of  any,  and  hence  it  has  happened  that  I  have 
never  solicited  a  nomination  or  an  appointment  from  or 
through  the  Republican  Party  or  any  member  of  it. 

In  i860,  a  majority  of  the  delegates  to  the  Congressional 
Convention  in  my  district,  favored  my  nomination,  but  not 
through  any  effort  by  me.  I  attended  the  Convention  and 
placed  in  nomination  Mr.  Train,  who  had  been  in  Congress 
one  term. 

Without  any  effort  on  my  part  I  was  nominated  in 
i862-'64-'66  and  '68.  No  aid  in  money  or  otherwise  was 
given  by  the  State  Committee  or  the  National  Committee. 
Following  my  nomination  in  each  case  the  District  Committee 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY         339 

asked  me  for  a  contribution  of  one  hundred  dollars.  On  one 
occasion  the  committee  sent  me  a  return  check  of  fortv-two 
dollars  and  some  cents  with  a  statement  that  the  full  amount 
had  not  been  expended.  If  contributions  of  money  were  made 
by  others  the  fact  was  not  communicated  to  me. 

I  became  a  candidate  for  the  Senate  upon  a  request  signed 
by  members  of  the  Legislature.  When  the  second  contest 
was  on,  in  1877,  I  declined  a  call  by  a  telegraphic  message  to 
visit  Boston  and  confer  with  my  friends  who  were  anxious 
for  my  election.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Peace  Congress  of 
1 86 1  and  I  received  several  other  appointments  from  Gov- 
ernor Andrew,  but  without  solicitation  by  me.  At  his  request 
I  went  to  Washington  for  a  conference  with  Mr.  Lincoln 
and  General  Scott.  I  reached  the  city  by  the  first  train  that 
passed  over  the  road  from  Annapolis.  Again,  at  his  request, 
I  went  to  Washington  the  Monday  following  the  battle  of 
Bull  Run. 

I  received  two  appointments  from  President  Lincoln,  when, 
in  each  case,  I  had  no  knowledge  that  the  place  existed. 

From  General  Grant  I  received  the  offer  of  the  Interior  De- 
partment and  then  of  the  Treasury  Department,  both  of  which 
I  declined.  When  General  Grant  had  taken  the  responsibility 
of  sending  my  name  to  the  Senate,  I  had  no  alternative  as 
a  member  of  the  Republican  Party  and  as  a  friend  to  General 
Grant. 

Upon  the  death  of  Mr.  Folger,  President  Arthur  asked  me 
to  take  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  I  was  then 
concerned  with  the  affairs  of  another  government  and  I  de- 
clined the  appointment. 

When  General  Garfield  had  been  nominated  at  Chicago  in 
1880  the  nomination  of  a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  friends  of  General  Grant. 
The  nomination  was  offered  to  me. 

In  the  forty  years  from  1856  to  1896,  I  made  speeches  in 


340  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

behalf  of  the  Republican  Party  in  Massachusetts,  Maine, 
Vermont,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  North  Caro- 
lina, Mississippi,  Missouri,  Illinois,  Ohio  and  Indiana  and  in 
no  instance  did  I  receive  compensation  for  my  services.  When 
I  spoke  in  Ohio  my  expenses  were  paid  on  all  occasions  but 
one.  That  was  a  volunteer  visit.  My  acquaintance  with  the 
politicians  of  Ohio  was  agreeable  from  first  to  last. 

In  my  many  trips  through  New  York  it  was  understood 
that  my  expenses  were  to  be  paid.  When  General  Arthur 
was  at  the  head  of  the  committee  his  checks  exceeded  the  ex- 
penses, perhaps  by  a  hundred  per  cent. 

On  one  occasion  the  State  Committee  asked  me  to  make 
six  or  eight  speeches  upon  their  appointment.  That  service 
I  performed;  whether  my  expenses  were  paid  I  cannot  say. 
If  they  were  paid  it  is  the  exception  in  Massachusetts,  unless 
local  expenses  may  have  been  met  where  addresses  were  made. 

If  a  mercantile  account  current  could  be  written,  it  might 
appear  that  my  obligations  to  the  Republican  Party  are  not 
in  excess  of  the  obligations  of  the  Republican  Party  to  me. 

From  my  experience  as  a  member  of  the  Republican  Party 
I  add  an  incident  to  what  I  have  said  already. 

In  the  month  of  July,  1862,  and  at  the  request  of  Presi- 
dent Lincoln  and  Secretary  Chase,  I  entered  upon  the  work 
of  organizing  the  Internal  Revenue  Office.  That  work  was 
continued  without  the  interruption  of  Sabbaths  or  evenings, 
with  few  exceptions  only,  till  March,  1863,  when,  as  was 
said  by  Mr.  Chase,  the  office  was  larger  than  the  entire  Treas- 
ury had  been  at  any  time  previous  to  186 1.  It  was  the  largest 
branch  of  government  ever  organized  in  historical  times  and 
set  in  motion  in  a  single  year.  The  system  remains  undis- 
turbed. Such  changes  only  have  been  made  as  were  required 
by  changes  in  the  laws.  In  the  thirty-eight  years  of  its  ex- 
istence the  Government  has  received  through  its  agency  the 
enormous  sum  of  five  thousand  and  five  hundred  million  dol- 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  341 

lars  being  twice  the  amount  of  all  the  revenues  of  the  Govern- 
ment previous  to  i860. 

I  have  thus  devoted  many  minutes  of  your  time  to  the 
questions  raised  by  Mr.  Moody. 

The  nature  and  extent  of  my  obligations  to  the  Republican 
Party  and  the  question  of  my  consistency  in  the  constructiou 
that  I  have  given  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
are  not  matters  of  grave  concern  for  you.  They  have  come 
into  the  field  of  discussion  through  the  agency  of  Mr.  Moody. 

I  come  now  to  ask  your  attention  to  a  view  of  your  rela- 
tions to  passing  events  which  concerns  the  county  of  Essex. 

Your  county  has  a  distinguished  history  —  distinguished 
for  its  men  and  for  its  part  in  public  affairs.  Shall  the  history 
that  you  are  now  making  be  consistent  with  that  which  you 
have  inherited  and  which  you  cherish?  I  mention  one  name 
only  among  your  great  names  and  I  bring  before  your  minds 
one  event  only. 

In  the  order  of  time  and  in  the  order  of  events,  the  second 
most  important  paper  in  the  annals  of  America  is  the  "  Or- 
dinance for  the  Government  of  the  Territory  of  the  United 
States  Northwest  of  the  River  Ohio." 

The  chief  value  of  that  ordinance  is  in  the  sixth  article 
which  is  in  these  words :  "  There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  in  the  said  Territory,  otherwise  than 
in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted." 

By  repeated  decisions  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  the 
stipulations  and  terms  of  the  ordinance  remained  in  force 
after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  unless  a  conflict  should 
appear,  and  in  such  a  case  the  ordinance  would  yield  to  the 
Constitution.  As  the  article  in  regard  to  slavery  was  not 
controlled  by  the  Constitution,  the  exclusion  of  slavery  be- 
came the  supreme  and  continuing  law  of  the  Territories  and 
States  that  were  organized  in  the  vast  region  covered  by  the 


342  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Ordinance  of  1787,  and  it  may  be  assumed,  fairly,  that  the 
character  and  power  of  those  States  made  possible  the  ex- 
termination of  the  institution  of  slavery  in  all  parts  of  the 
country.  The  parties  to  the  ordinance  of  1787  may  have 
builded  better  than  they  knew,  but  their  work  is  one  of  the 
four  great  acts  or  events  in  the  history  of  the  Republic : — 
The  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  the 
Constitution,  and  the  amendment  abolishing  the  institution 
of  slavery. 

Nathan  Dane  of  the  county  of  Essex,  was  the  author  of 
the  Ordinance  of  1787;  and  he  was  a  delegate  in  the  Conti- 
nental Congress  from  1785  to  1788.  Of  all  the  eminent  men 
that  you  have  sent  forth  into  the  service  of  the  State  and  the 
country,  he  must  be  accounted  the  chief,  when  we  consider 
the  value  of  his  contribution,  historically,  and  on  the  side  of 
freedom  and  civilization.  His  fame  is  in  your  hands  and  I 
have  come  to  ask  you  to  consider  whether  the  policy  of 
President  McKinley  in  the  Philippines  is  in  harmony  with 
the  Ordinance  of  1787  and  the  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  1865. 

By  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  freedom  and  full  right  to  self- 
government  were  made  secure  to  the  coming  millions  who 
were  to  occupy  the  States  northwest  of  the  River  Ohio.  By 
the  amendment  of  1865  freedom  and  equality  in  government 
were  guaranteed  to  all  and  especially  to  the  negro  race  in 
America. 

Shall  the  avoidance  of  the  Amendment  in  States  of  this 
Union  be  tendered  as  a  reason  for  a  denial  of  equality  and  the 
right  of  self-government  in  the  Philippine  Islands?  If  the 
negroes  in  America  are  entitled  to  freedom  from  a  state  of 
subserviency,  are  not  the  colored  races  in  the  Philippines  en- 
titled to  freedom,  and  that  whether  they  are  under  the  Con- 
stitution or  beyond  its  jurisdiction? 

You  are  called  to  a  choice  between  the  doctrines  of  Nathan 


IMPERIALISM  AS  A  PUBLIC  POLICY  343 

Dane  and  Abraham  Lincoln  on  one  side  and  the  doctrines  and 
poHcy  of  President  McKinley  and  his  supporters  on  the  other 
side.  The  point  that  I  make  is  this :  The  three  propositions 
cannot  stand  together.  Dane  and  Lincoln  are  in  harmony. 
They  guaranteed  equality  and  self-government  to  all.  Presi- 
dent McKinley  and  his  supporters  demand  subserviency  of  all 
who  are  not  within  the  lines  of  the  American  seas. 

They  assert  supreme  authority  over  their  fellow-men  for 
an  indefinite  period  of  time,  and  they  promise  therewith  good 
government.  Here  are  the  assertion  of  power  and  the  promise 
of  goodness  that  have  attended  the  origin  and  movement  of 
every  despotism  that  has  risen  to  curse  mankind. 

That  you  may  see,  as  in  one  view,  the  doctrines  of  Dane, 
Lincoln  and  McKinley,  I  read  again  the  records  that  they 
have  made. 

"There  shall  be  neither  slavery  "The  Philippines  are  ours  and 

nor    involuntary   servitude  in  the  American   authority    must  be    eu- 

said  territory  otherwise  than  in  the  preme  throughout  the  Archipelago 

punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  There  will  be  amnesty,  broad  and 

mrtv   shall  have    been  duly  con-  liberal,   but  no  abatement  of  our 

i^cted"  — Nathan  Dane.  rights,   no     abandonment    of    our 

duty.     There   must   be  no  scuttle 

' '  Neither  slavery  nor  mvoluntary  policy . "  —  William  McKinley. 

Srcrime  .Sofihe  ^S^y  ThaH  "The  flag  of  the  Republic  now 

have  been    duly    convicted,    shall      floats  over  these   islands  as  an  em- 
exist  within  the  United  States,  or      blem  of  rightful  soverei^ty.     Will 


any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdic-      the_  Republic  stay  and  dispense  to 
tion"- Abraham  Lincoln.  their  inhabitants   the  blessings  of 

liberty,  education  and  free  institu- 
tions, or  steal  away  leaving  them 
to  anarchy  or  imperialism." — Wil- 
liam McKinley. 

"Any  slave  in  the  Archipelago 
of  Jolo  shall  have  the  right  to  pur- 
chase freedom  by  paying  to  the 
master  the  usual  market  price." — 

Article  lo,  of  the  McKinley  treaty 
with  the  Sultan  of  the  Sulu  Isles. 

I  leave  three  questions  with  you. 

Is  a  vote  for  President  McKinley  and  his  policy  in  the 
Philippine  Islands  a  vote  in  harmony  with  the  teachings  and 
examples  of  Nathan  Dane  and  Abraham  Lincoln? 


344  SIXTY  YEARS  IN  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Is  the  policy  of  President  McKinley  consistent  with  the 
history  of  the  county  of  Essex? 

Shall  your  representative  stand  lor  Nathan  Dane  and 
Abraham  Lincoln  and  Freedom,  or  for  William  McKinley  and 
Despotism  ? 


THE  END 


INDEX 


INDEX 

A 

ABOLITION  of  slavery  throughout  the  world,  Vol.  II.  31a 
Acton  Monument,   128. 
Adams,  Alvin,  43. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  72,  Vol.  II.  201. 
Adams    Express  Co.,  43. 
Adams,  John  Quincy,  52. 

funeral  of,  102. 
Adams,  Samuel  and  Charles  Sumner,  Vol.  II.  220. 
Adirondacks,  trip  to  the,  238. 

Administration,  vigor  in,  how  secured.  Vol.  II.  137. 
Agassiz,  Alexander,  258. 
Alabama  Controversy,  Vol.  II.  235. 
Alaska,  government  of,  Vol.  II.  146. 
Allen,  Elisha  H.,  lOi. 
Allison,  Wm.  B.,  Vol.  II.  i. 
Amendmerit,  the  15th,  History  of,  Vol.  II.  44. 
American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  260. 

America,  celebration  of  the  discovery  of,  orator  for  the.  Vol.  II.  317. 
America,  discovery  of,  Vol.  II.   314,  320. 
Andrew,   Governor,  284. 

letter  to,  286. 
Annapolis,   condition  of,   April   1861,   285. 
Annapolis  Junction,  condition  of,  April   1861,  286. 
Armies,  character  of  in  the  Civil  War,  Vol.  II.  259. 
Army,  appropriation  for  in  1867,  Vol.  II.   108. 
Arthur,  President,  policy  of  in   1881,  Vol.  II.  275. 
Assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  investigation  of  the,  Vol.  II.  55, 
Austin,  James  T.,  104. 

B 

15  ANCROFT,  Amos  B.,  studies  with,  48. 
Bancroft,  George,  63. 

speech  of,  64,  Vol.  II.  248. 
Bank  of  England,  deposits  of  money  in,  Vol.  II.  i8g. 
Bank,  Tenth  National,  its  connection  with  "  Black  Friday,"  Vol.  II.  174. 

345 


346  INDEX 

Banks,  Commission  on,  98. 

Banks,  Nathaniel  P.,  107,  Vol.  II.  237. 

letters  from,  Vol.  II.  239,  240. 
Banks,   National,  policy   of  the.   Vol.   11.   187. 
Bankers,  aid  of  a  necessity  in  financial  negotiations,  Vol.  II.  186. 
Bankers,  policy  of  in  1870,  Vol.  II.  142, 
Bard,  Aaron,  11. 
Bates,  Attorney  General,  305. 
Behring  Sea,  jurisdiction  over,  Vol.  II.  147. 
Bigelow,  George  T.,  75. 
Bigelow,  Timothy,  36. 
Biglow  Papers,  Vol.  II.  245. 

Bill  of  1869  for  funding  the  public  debt,  Vol.   II.   184. 
Bingham,  John  A.,  Vol.  II.  42,  119,  120. 
Bird,  Francis  W.,  229. 

Births,  marriages  and  deaths,  records  of,  88. 
"Black  Friday,"  Vol.  II.  164,  178,   181. 
Blaine,  James  G.,  Vol.  II.  i,  260,  263,  265,  272. 
Border-State  men,  269. 
Boston,  first  visit  to,  7. 

harbor  of,  Commission  on,  97. 
representatives  from,  in  the  Forties,  72. 
Bonds,  U.  S.  value  of  in  i86g.  Vol.  II.  127. 

U.  S.,  purchase  of,  Vol.  II.  138,  165,  167,  200. 
U.  S.,  sale,  method  of,  Vol.  II.   139,  183. 

Booth,  John  Wilkes,  death  of,  Vol.  II.  60. 

Boutwell,  George  S.,  birthplace,   i. 
ancestry,  5. 

letter  to  Governor  Andrew,  286. 
letters  to  Hon.  Simon  Cameron,  291. 

Boutwell,  Miss,  letter  from  General  Grant,  Vol.  II.  253. 

Briggs,  George  N.,  87. 

Britain,  Great,  policy  of,  in  America,  138. 

Brocklebank,  Capt.,  character  of,  172. 

Brookline,  birth  in,  i. 

Brooks,  George  M.,  248. 

Brooks,  James,  Vol.  II.  14- 

Buchanan,  President,  interview  with,  275. 

Bull  Run,  first  battle  of,  265. 

Bunker  Hill  Monument,  Address  upon  completion  of,  in  1843.  89. 

Bureau  of  Engraving  and  Printing,  changes  in  1S69,  Vol.  II.  127. 

Burleigh,  Charles,  the  author  of  the  downfall  of  silver,  Vol.  II.  154. 

Burlingame,  Anson,  218. 

Business,  beginnings  in,  47. 


INDEX  347 

Butler,  Benjamin  R,  Vol.  II.  14,  283,  294. 

Butler,  Caleb,  40. 

Butterfield,  General,  his  resignation,  Vol.   II.   178. 

c 

CABINS,  log,  60. 
Cabot,  J.  S.,  98. 
Cairo,  Commission  at,  293. 
Cambridge,   252,   262. 
Cameron,  Hon.  Simon,  letters  to,  291. 
Canada,  opening  of  R.  R.  with,  125,  Vol.  II.  278. 
Canonchet,  Chief,  character  of,  174. 

Carolina,   North,   Proclamation,   concerning.   Vol.   II.    102. 
Cass,  General,   114,  interview  with,  275. 
Castellar  of  Spain,  Vol.  II.  317. 
Changes  and  progress  from  1830  to   1900,  26. 
Chanler,  of  New  York,  Vol.  II.  7. 
Charlestown,  speech  at,  253. 
Chase,  Salmon  P.,  speech  of,  in  Peace  Convention,  268,  270,  304,  307, 

313,  Vol.  II.  IS,  17,  29,  119. 
Chittenden's  Report  of  Peace  Convention,  268. 
Choate,  Rufus,  231,  281. 
Civil  Service,  reform  of  the.  Vol.  II.  133. 
Clark,  S.  M.,  Vol.  II.  15,  127. 
Clergy,  influence  of,  in  the  Revolution,  155. 
Clerk  and  store  boy,  20. 
Clifford,  John  H.,   124. 

Coinage  of  silver  coins,  previous  to  1873,  Vol.  II.  152. 
Colfax,  Speaker,  Vol.  II.  2. 
College,  Harvard,  95. 
Colonies,    the,  character  of,  137. 
Columbia,  District  pf,  Suffrage  in,  Vol.  II.  37. 
Columbus,  Vol.  II.  314,  319,  320. 
Commission,  The  Electoral,  of  1877,  Vol.  II.  264,  284. 

French  and  American,  Vol.  II.  286. 

Silver,  of  1876,  History  of,  Vol.  II.  157,  160. 
Committee,  the  Judiciary,  Vol.  II.  114. 

Report  of,   on   "  Black  Frid?y,"   Vol.   II.   164. 
Committees,  service  on,  Vol.  II.  6. 
Company,  Credit  Mobilier,  Vol.  II.  7. 
Compromises,  254-5. 
Concord  Fight,  148,  150. 

address  on,  130. 
Concord  resolutions  in  favor  of  liberty,  153. 


348  INDEX 

Congress,  nomination  for,  in  i862-'64-'66  and  '68,  Vol.  II.  338. 

legality  of  the  39th,  Vol.  II.  79. 

services  in,  Vol.  II.  i. 
Congressional  contest  of  1858,  248. 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  Vol.  II.   i,  260,  265,  268,  272,  273,  274. 
Consistency  of  opinion.  Vol.  II.  323. 
Conspiracy,  the,  262. 

Conspirators     for  the  assassination  of  Lincoln,  Vol.  II.  57. 
Constitution,  Thirteenth  Amefndment  to,  Vol.  II.  36,  ^y. 

construction  of,  Vol.  II.  326,  330. 

Fifteenth  Amendment,  History  of.  Vol.  II.  44,  45. 

Fourteenth  Amendment  to.  Vol.  II.  36,  41. 

influence  of,  on  the  Colonies,  139. 
Constitutional  Convention  in  Massachusetts,  216,  217,  219,  225,  231. 
Continental    Magazine,   article   in,   266. 
Convention,  Republican,  of  1880,  Vol.  II.  266,  267. 
Conversation,  private,  danger  of  quoting,  106. 

Cooke,  Jay,  &  Co.,  as  negotiators  of  the  loan  in  1871,  Vol.  II.  142. 
Corbett,  Boston,  Vol.  II.  60. 
Corbin,  A.  R.,  his  relation  to  the  speculation  of  "  Black  Friday,"  Vol. 

II.  171. 
Corporations,  controversy  over,  78. 

taxation  of,  80. 
Counterfeiter,  interview  with  a,  Vol.  II.  129. 
Country  life  in  1830,  8. 
Courtesy  of  the  Senate,  Vol.  II.  282. 
Courts-Martial,  Vol.  II.    287. 
Cox,  S.  S.,  Vol.  II.  8. 

Credit,  public,  improvement  of,  since  1870,  Vol.  II.  187,  202. 
Crime  of  1873,  Vol.  II.  150. 
Curtis,  Benjamin  R.,   iii,  Vol.  II.  118. 
Curtis,  Charles  P.,  113, 
Curtis,  George  T.,  113. 
Cushing,  Caleb,  94,  119,  120,  122,  231. 
Cushing,  Edmund,  family  of,  23. 

D 

"pVAMON,  Rev.  David,  13. 

■^^    Dana,  Charles  A.,  acquaintance  with,  293,  hostility  of,  to  Gen.  Grant, 

294- 
Dana,  Richard  H.,Jr.,  member  committee  on  Mass.  State  Constitution, 

221,  nominated  -for  minister  to  England,  226. 

Dana,  Samuel,  36. 


INDEX  349 

Dane,   Nathan,  the  services  of,  Vol.  II.   342. 

compared  with  Lincoln  and  McKinley,  Vol.  II.  342-4. 
Davis,  Bancroft,  228. 
Davis,  Henry  Winter,  Vol.  II.  i. 

speech  of.  Vol.  II.  3. 
Davis,  Isaac,  160. 
Davis,  Isaac,  Capt.,  128. 
Davis,  Matthewr  L.,  52. 
Davis,  Reuben,  Vol.  II.  280. 
Dawes,  Henry  L.,  iii. 
Dearborn,  H.  A.  S.,  82. 

Debt,  Bill  for  funding  the  public,  History  of,  Vol.  II.  140,  184. 
Defeat  of  1844,  91. 
Devens,  General,  266. 
Dexter,  Franklin,  247. 
Dexter,  Samuel,  15,  58. 
Diary,  Booth's,  Vol.  II.  58. 
Dix,  Benjamin  P.,  33. 

Dodge,  William  E.,  Case  with  the  Government,  Vol.  II.  148. 
Dollar  decreed  to  be  gold  only.  Vol.  II.  151. 

the  Trade,  Vol.  II.  154. 
Dorr,  Thomas  W.,  82. 
Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  policy  of,  in  1854,  Vol.  II.  338. 


PDUCATION,  Secretary  o£  Mass.  Board  of,  256. 
*"'   Election  of  1840,  59. 

to  House  of  Representatives,   69. 

of  1842,  83. 

Senatorial,  of  1877,  Vol.  II.  284. 
Elections,  money  in.  Vol.  II.  13. 
Emancipation,  demand  for,  262. 

Proclamation  of.  Vol.  II.  17,  309. 
Emery,  General  William  H.,  interview  of,  with  President  Johnson,  Vol. 

II.  no. 
Emerson,  George  B.,  259. 
Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  248. 
England,  Bank  of,  deposits  in  and  terms  o4  Vol.  II.  189. 

Bonds,  sale  of  in.  Vol.  II.  183. 
Everett,  A.  K.,  as  an  orator,  56. 
Everett,  Edward,  as  an  orator,  56. 


350  INDEX 


FANEUIL  HALL,  dinner  in,  in  honor  of  Morton's  election,  85,  Vol. 
IL  20. 
Farley,  George  F.,  37. 

Felton,  President  of  Harvard  College,  260. 
Field,  David  Dudley,  course  of  in  Peace  Convention,  273. 

interview  vi^ith  after  Pope's  defeat,  310. 
Fifteenth  Amendment  supported  by  President  Grant,  Vol.  H.  229. 
Fillmore,  President,   visit  to  Mass.   in   1851,   125. 
Fish,  Secretary,  Vol.  IL  235. 

as  a  public  officer  and  statesman.  Vol.  II.  212. 
Fishery,  seal,  in  Alaska,  Vol.  II.   147. 

Fisk,  James,  Jr.,  testimony  of,  "  Black  Friday,"  Vol.  II.  165,  179. 
Fiske,  Mr.,  Register  of  Probate,  124. 
Fitzpatrick,  Bishop,  220. 
Flint,  Timothy,  14. 

Frelinghuysen,  Frederick  T.,  speech  in  Peace  Convention,  268. 
Fremont,  John  C,  sketch  of,  295. 
Fuller,  Margaret,  35. 
Fuller,  Timothy,  35. 
Fund,  Sinking,  History  of.  Vol.  IL  137,  186. 


r^  ALVIN,  suit  by,  Vol.  II.  206. 
^^      Gardner,  Henry  J.,  238. 
Garfield,  James  A.,  Vol.  II.  i. 

opinion  of  General  Rosecrans,  Vol.  II.  247. 
Geneva  Conference,  Vol.  II.  200. 
Geographies,  errors  in  systems,  259, 
Giles,  Joel,  234. 
Going,  John  K.,  237. 
Gold,  sales  of,  Vol.  II.  138. 

accumulation  of,  in  Bank  of  England,  Vol.  II.  196. 

product  of  and  influence  of  on  prices.  Vol.  II.   162. 

sale  of  September  24,  1869,  Vol.  IL  175. 

sales  of,  Vol.  II.   165. 

sales  of,  policy  in  regard  to  the,  Vol.  IL  167. 

speculation  in,  in  September,  1869,  Vol.  II.  165-7. 
Gould,  Jay,  Vol.  II.  165. 

his  plan  in  regard  to  gold.  Vol.  II.  182. 

letters  from.  Vol.  II.  173-4- 


INDEX  351 

Governor,  nomination  for  the  office  of  in  1849,  115. 

election  of,  in  1850,   115. 
Granger,  Francis,   course  of  in   Peace  Convention,  274. 
Grant,  Fred  D.,  letter  of,  in  regard  to  General  Grant's  letter  of  1880,  Vol. 

II.  271. 
Grant,  General,  views  of,  on  reconstruction,  Vol.  II.  70. 

administration,  Cabinet  in.  Vol.  II.  204. 

and  Sheridan  compared.  Vol.   II.  241. 

as  a  man  and  friend,  Vol.  II.  249. 

as  an  administrator,  Vol.  II.  212. 

as  a  statesman,  Vol.  II.  225. 

attempt  to  influence  his  acts  in  the  events  of  "  Black  Friday,"  Vol. 
II.   170,  171. 

candidacy  of,  in  1880,  Vol.  II.  266. 

characteristics  of,  Vol.  II.  235-250. 

correspondence  with,  upon  my  resignation  from  Treasury,  Vol.  II.  223. 

his  advice  in  regard  to  the  sale  of  gold,  Vol.  II.  175. 

his  career  as  a  soldier.  Vol.  II.  254. 

his  course  in  regard  to  appointments,  Vol.  II.  221. 

letter  from.  Vol.  II.  169. 

letter  of,  to  Conkling  and  others,  Vol.   II.  269. 

letter  of,  to  Miss  Boutwell,  Vol.  II.  253. 

opinion  of  the  army.  Vol.  II.  258. 

mission  to  Mexico  in  1866,  Vol.  II.  109. 

testimony  of,  in  regard  to  President  Johnson's  plans.  Vol.  II.  ill. 
Greene,  Charles  G.,  114. 
Griffin,  John  Quincy  Adams,  sketch  of,  312. 
Groton,  residence  in,  33. 

Liberty  Hall  in,  64. 
Guyot,  Professor,  259. 

H 

TT  ALE,  ROBERT  S.,  Vol.  H.   11. 

Hallet,  Benjamin  F.,  114. 
Hamlin,  Vice-President,  despatch  to,  April  1861,  285. 
Hangmen,  ministers  as,  74. 
Harrison,  William  H.,  60 
Harvard  College,  my  relations  to,  96. 
Hawaiian  Treaty,  Vol.  II.  277. 
Hayti,  Republic,  claim  against,  Vol.  II.  289. 
Haywood,  Simeon,  20. 
Henshaw,  David,  114. 
Hillard,  George  S.,  219. 


352  INDEX 

Hitchcock,  President  of  Amherst  College,  260. 

Hoar,  E.  R.,  the  resignation  of  from  General  Grant's  Cabinet,  Vol.  H. 

208-210. 
Hoar,  Samuel,  96. 

Hooker,  General,  after  battle  of  Antietam,  308. 
Hopkins,  President  of  Williams  College,  260. 
Howe,  Elias,  234 
Hubbard,  Joseph  S.,  34. 
Hubbard,  Rev.  Joseph,  15. 
Hunkers,  old,  116. 

/ 

IMPEACHMENT,  Vol.  II.  10. 

Andrew  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  96. 

Law  of.  Vol.  II.  114. 

of  President  Johnson,  charges  in,  Vol.  II.   112. 

of  President  Johnson,  Report  of,  1867,  Vol.  II.  113. 

resolution  for  the,  of  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  55. 
Imperialism  as  a  public  policy,  Vol.  II.  323. 
Incidents  of  early  life,  3. 
Indians,  Narragansett,  165. 

Tribes  of,  under  King  Philip,  165. 
Insanity,  investigation  of,  in  1847,  99. 
Insolvency,  clerk  in,  42. 
Inter'nal  Revenue  Office,  resignation  as  Commissioners,  311. 

and  permanency,  315. 

its  magnitude,  313. 

policy  of,  313. 
Interest  on  public  debt,  how  payable  by  checks,  Vol.  II.  185. 
Introduction,  page  v. 
Investigations  following  the  Civil  War,  Vol.  II.  55. 

trial  of  President  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  118. 
Issues  in  legal  contests,  change  of.  Vol.  II.  324. 

7 

JEFFERSON,  dinner  in  honor  of,  in  1859,  250. 
administration  of.  Vol.  II.  301. 
Johnson,   President,  views  of  reconstruction.  Vol.  II.   72. 
expenses  of  his  administration.  Vol.  II.   121. 
his  nomination  in  1864,  Vol.  II.  97,  loi. 
his  course  in  Congress,  Vol.  II.  97. 
impeachment  of,  Vol.  II.  96. 
impeachment  of,  its  value.  Vol.  II.  122. 


INDEX  353 

Johnson,  interview   with   Stanley  Matthews,  Vol.  II.    lOO. 
interview  with  him  in  1865,  Vol.  II.  103. 
issues  in  trial  of,  Vol.  II.  117 
managers  at  trial  of,  Vol.  II.  113. 
plan  of  reconstruction,  Vol.  II.  91. 
policy  in  North  Carolina,  Vol.  II.  94. 
policy  of,  in  1866,  Vol.  II.  76. 
policy  of,  in  regard  to  the  reorganization  of  the  government,  Vol. 

II.  112. 
policy  of  reconstruction,  Vol.  II.  74. 
proclamation  by,  Vol.  II.  104. 
speeches  by.  Vol.  II.  106. 
trial  of.  Vol.  II.  113. 
vote  of  Senate  on  question  of  guilty  or  not  guilty,  Vol.  II.  117. 

K 

TT  ERNAN,  FRANCIS,  Vol.  II.  2. 
■■^      King  Philip,  164. 

death  of,   182. 
King  Philip's  War,  destruction  in,  168,  173. 

causes  of,  177. 

policy  of  colonists  in,  174. 
Kinnicutt,  Thomas,  80. 
Khow-Nothing  Party,  238. 
Kossuth,  Louis,  184. 


T    ANGUAGE,  French,  study  of,  88. 

Law,  study  of,  40. 
Leadership,  elements  of,   70. 
Lee,  General,  rights  of,  after  the  surrender,  Vol.  II.  J^. 

character  of,  Vol.  II.  85. 

examination  of,  Vol.  II.  79. 

the  offensive  campaigns  of,  Vol.  II.  256. 

views  of,  on  secession,  Vol.  II.  82. 
Legal  Tender  cases,  Vol.  II.  208. 
Legislature  of  1847,  94. 

1848,  102. 

1849,  107. 

Lewis,  Andrew  J.,  Vol.  II.  70. 
Lewis,  Joseph  J.,  313. 
Liberty,  its  influence,  144. 


354  INDEX 

Lincoln,  Ezra,  117. 

Lincoln,  President,  ability  of,  in  military  affairs.  Vol.  IL  305. 

advice  in  regard  to  command  of  army,  310. 

as  an  historical  personage,  Vol.  H.  300. 

attacks  upon,  Vol.  IL  303. 

character  of  his  Cabinet,  Vol.  IL  311. 

character  of.  Vol.  II.  313. 

his  opinion  of  Stanton,  Vol.  II.  go. 

his  power  as  a  controversialist,  Vol.  II.  304. 

his  relations  to  General  Grant,  Vol.  II.  308. 

hostility  to,  in  Congress,  Vol.  II.  310. 

influence  over  doings  of  Peace  Congress,  274. 

letter  from,  April  1859,  250. 

neglect  to  send  troops  into  Virginia,  Vol.  II.  65. 

opinions  on  secession.  Vol.  II.  33. 

on  campaign  against  Vicksburg,  311. 

policy  in  regard  to  Fort  Sumter,  Vol.  II.  62. 

policy  of,  in  regard  to  slavery.  Vol.  II.  loi. 

policy  of,  in  regard  to  Virginia,  Vol.  II.  66. 

remark  in  regard  to  Mr.  Chase,  275. 
Lincoln,  Solomon,  98. 
Long,  Alexander,  Vol.  II.  2. 
Louisiana,   reorganization   of.   Vol.    II.  240. 
Lowell,  James  Russell,  Vol.  II.  245. 
Lunenburg,  early  home  in,  2 

business  in,  20. 
Lyceums,  76. 

M 

Ti^ANAGERS  at  trial  of  President  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  113. 

•'■■'■     chairman  of,  at  trial  of  President  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  119. 

Mann,  Horace,  256. 

Marshall,  Timothy,  16. 

Mason,  Lowell,  259. 

Massachusetts  men  in  the  Forties,  69. 

Massachusetts,  resolutions  of,  concerning  Senator  Sumner,  Vol.  II.  217. 

parties  in,  in  1854,  238. 
Matthews,  Stanley,  interview  with  Vice-President  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  100. 
Maud  S.,  Vol.  II.  266. 
McClellan  Club,  Vol.  II.  21. 

McClellan,  relations  of,  to  President  Lincoln,  Vol.  II.  306. 
McCulloch,  Secretary,  opinion  of  Treasury  in  1869,  Vol.  11.  125. 

difficulties  in  administration,  Vol.  II.  125. 


INDEX  355 

McKinley,  the  policy  of,  in  the  Philippine  Islands,  Vol.  II.  332. 
Meetings,  political,  in  1840,  63. 
Meteors,  shower  of,  in  1833,  22. 
Mexico,  war  with,  94. 

mission  to,  in  1866,  Vol.  II.  109. 
Miantonomo,  Chief,  death  of,  176. 
Middlesex,  County  of,  declaration  by  the,  142. 
Mint  Bill  of  1873,  Vol.  II.  150. 

effect  of.  Vol.  II.  156. 

its  importance.  Vol.  II.  163. 
Mint  Service,  organization  of,  Vol.  II.  150. 
Mississippi,  election  in,  in  1875,  Vol.  II.  279. 
Monument,  Sudbury,  address  at  dedication  of,  160. 
Moody,  William  H.,  controversy  with,  Vol.  II.  333. 
Morse,  author  of  a  geography,  259. 
Morton,  Governor,  58,  219. 

administration  of,  in  1843,  86. 
Morton,  Marcus,  Jr.,  219. 
Motley,  J.  Lothrop,  94. 
Murray,  author  of  a  grammar,  259. 

N 
"JU'ANTUCKET,  77. 
^      Negroes,  their  future,  Vol.  II.  281. 

o 

pv'BRIEN,  SMITH,  meeting  in  behalf  of,  127. 
^^     Occupations  of  the  people  in  1830,  29. 

Office,  appointments  to,  Vol.   II.  134. 

Officers,  civil,  for  what  offences  removable  by  impeachment.  Vol.  II.  lidi 

Opinion,  changes  in,  26. 

value  of  contemporaneous.  Vol.  II.  302. 

Otis,  Harrison  Gray,  103. 

P 

pAPERS,   secret.  Vol.  II.  62. 

■''      for  publication,  48. 

Parentage,  5. 

Park,  Stuart  J.,  236. 

Parties  in  Massachusetts  in  1854,  238. 

Party,  Democratic  in  Mass.,  1848,  114. 

obligations  to,  Vol.  II.  338. 
Patriotism,  149. 


356  INDEX 

Peace  Convention,  members  of,  for  Massachusetts,  268. 

debates  in,  271,  272. 

of  1861,  268. 

parties  in,  269. 

report  on,  282. 

speech  in,  273. 
Pelletier,  Antonio,  Vol.  II.  289. 
People's  Party,  263. 
Pequot  Indians,  treaty  with,  175. 
Phelps,  Rev.  Dudley,  45. 
Phi  Beta  Kappa,  oration  of  1861,  262. 

Phillips,  Wendell,  part  in  aid  of  Fifteenth  Amendment,  Vol.  II.  48. 
Pierce,  President,  233. 
Pierce,  Rev.  Dr.,  2. 
Pierpont,  John,  29. 

Pillow,  Gideon  J.,  visit  to  Massachusetts,  121. 
Pitt,  opinion  of,  138. 

Pleasanton,  General,  appointment  and  removal  as  commissioner  of  In- 
ternal Revenue,  Vol.  II.  131. 
Plot  to  murder  Lincoln,  Vol.  II.  61. 
Poland,  partition  of,  145. 
Politics,  first  experiences  in,  55. 
Polk,  James  K.,  91. 
Poll  tax,  81. 

Post  office  at  Groton,  51. 
Potomac,  Army  of  the,  Vol.  II.  31 1. 
Presidency,  term  of.  Vol.  II.  122. 
President,  election  of,  Vol.  II.  33. 

election  of,  in  1877,  Vol.  II.  284. 
Proclamation  by  President  Johnson  in  1865,  Vol.  II.  104.    . 
Proclamation  of   Emancipation,    Vol.   II.   311. 

history  of.  Vol.  II.  17. 

R 

■n  ANDALL,  SAMUEL  J.,  Vol.  II.  16. 

•'^      Rantoul,  Robert,  Jr.,  elected  senator,  117. 

characteristics  of,  118,  231,  232. 
Rantoul,  Robert,  231,  232,  233. 

Ratio,  attempt  to  establish  a,  between  gold  and  silver,  Vol.  II.  151. 
Raymond,  Henry  J.,  Vol.  II.  10. 
Rebellion,  speech  on.  Vol.  II.  22. 

Dorr,  82. 

Shays,  66. 


INDEX  357 


Reciprocity,  Vol.  II.  277. 
Reconstruction,  policy  of,  Vol.  II.  30. 

by  President  Johnson,  Vol.  II.  104. 

General  Grant's  views  of,  Vol.  II.  70,  74. 

policies  for,  Vol.  II.  105. 
Register,  Genealogical,  161. 

Reports  as  secretary  of  Board  of  Education,  260. 
Representative,  candidate  for,  in  1839,  57. 
Republican  Party,  organization  of,  in  Massachusetts,  246, 
Republican   Party,  Vol.  II.  300. 
Revenue  Marine  Service,  changes  in,  Vol.  II.   129. 
Revenue  System,  the  Internal,  organization  of,  303. 
Revolution,  how  supported,  155. 

its  morality,  135. 
Rhode  Island,  Dorr  Rebellion  in,  82. 

controversy  with,  224. 
Rice,  A.  H.,  Vol.  II.  3. 
Richardson,   William   A.,  ix. 
Robinson,  Rev.  Charles,  45. 
Robinson,  John  P.,  "JT. 
Russell,  Bradford,  40 
Russell,   William,  260. 


SALARY  grab,  Vol.  II.  11. 
Salaries,  Vol.  II.  13. 

reduction  of,  in  1843,  86. 
Santo  Domingo,  General  Grant's  policy  in  regard  to,  Vol.  II.  233. 
School-keeping,  31. 
Schools  and  teachers,  18,  32. 
Schools,    district   system,   257. 
Schools  in  Massachusetts,  controversy  over,  257. 
Schenck,  General,  Vol.  II.  8. 
Sears,  Barnas,  256. 
Secession,  debate  upon,  Vol.  II.  2. 

difficulties  of,  262. 

effects  of,  Vol.  II.  30. 

Mr.  Lincoln  on,  Vol.  II.  33. 
Secretary  of  Mass.  Board  of  Education,  256. 
Securities,  Public  examination  of.  in  1847,   100. 
Seddon,  James  A.,  interview  with,  269. 
Senate,  election  to,  Vol.  II.  221. 

courtesy  of,  Vol.  II.  282. 


358  INDEX 

Senate,  U.  S.,  in  1839,  52. 

vote  of,  on  impeachment  of  President  Johnson,  Vol.   II,   117. 
Senator,  election  of,  in  185 1,  116. 
Seward,  William  H.,  Interview  with,  270. 
Shattuck,  Job,  65, 
Shays,  Daniel,  65. 
Shellabarger,  Samuel,  Vol.  II.  33. 
Sherman,  General,  mission  to  Mexico  in  1866,  Vol.  II.  109. 

his  religious  opinions,  Vol.  II.  243. 

opinion  of,  of  General  Grant,  Vol.  II.  258. 
"  Shoemakerized,"  119. 
Silver,  demonetization  of,  history  of  the.  Vol.  II.  152. 

bimetalism,  system  of.  Vol.  II.  162. 

its  downfall,  the  author  of  its,  Vol.  II.  154. 

product  of,  Vol.  II.  161. 
Skeleton,  history  of,  49. 
Slavery,  interview  with  a  slave  woman,  53. 

influence  of,  in  the  Forties,  Vol.  II.  246. 

in  the  territories.  Vol.  II.  327. 

Lincoln's  policy  in  regard  to,  Vol.  II.  loi. 
Slaves,  value  of.  Vol.  II.  308. 
Slave  traders,  the  last  of  the  ocean,  Vol.  II.  289. 
Societies,  religious,  9. 
Society,  in  the  North,  Vol.  II.  245. 
South,  condition  of,  in  1866,  Vol.  II.  80,  86. 

Spain,  its  part  and  fortunes  in  the  discovery  of  America,  Vol.  II.  319. 
Speakership  in  Massachusetts  in  1842,  83. 
Speeches  in  1840,  63. 

Speculators  in  gold,  their  policy  in  1869,  Vol.  II.  169. 
Spooner,  Dr.,  i. 

Standard  of  Values,  Vol.  II.  160. 
Stanton,  Secretary,  Gorham's  Life  of,  311. 

agency  in  the  work  of  reconstruction.  Vol.  II.  92. 

character  of.  Vol.  II.  89. 

his  attempted  removal  by  President  Johnson,  Vol.  11.  115. 

interview  with,  December,   1866,  Vol.  II.  107. 
Staples,  Thomas  A.,  42. 
State  Rights,  Vol.  II.  67. 

General  Lee's  position  on  the  doctrine  of,  Vol.  II.  79. 
States,  Border,  their  condition  in  1861,  Vol.  II.  loi. 
Statistics,  Vital,  bill  for  registration  of,  88. 
Statutes,  revision  of.  Vol.  II.  285. 

Stevens,  Alexander  H.,  doctrine  of  State  Rights,  Vol.  II.  67. 
Stevens,  Thaddeus,  Vol.  II.  9,  10. 


INDEX  359 

Stewart,  A.  T.,  his  relations  to  General  Grant's  administration,  Vol. 

II.  204. 
Stewart,  Senator,  opinions  of,  Vol.  II.  155. 
Sturgis,  family  of,  245. 
Sudbury  Fight,  date  of,   160. 

character  of,  169. 

losses  at,  171. 
Sudbury  monument,  160. 
Suffrage,  speech  on,  Vol.  II.  2)7- 

in  the  South,  Vol.  II.  53. 

its  future  in  the  country,  Vol.  II.  43. 
Sumner,  Senator,  as  a  member  of  convention  of  1853,  227. 

and   Samuel  Adams,   compared,  Vol.   II.   220. 

course  on  Fourteenth  Amendment,  Vol.  II.  42. 

his  qualities  and  powers,  Vol.  II.  218. 

on  reconstruction,  Vol.  II.  32. 

ostracized.  Vol.  II.  246. 

personal  relations  with.  Vol.   II.  215. 

removal  of,  from  chairmanship  of  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
Vol.   II.   214. 

the  resolution  of  Massachusetts  in  regard  to.  Vol.  II.  217. 
Sumter,  Fort,  Mr.  Lincoln's  policy  in  regard  to,  Vol.  II.  62. 
Surgeons,  character  of,  in  Confederate  Army,  Vol.  II.  84. 


'T*AXATION   of  mortgaged  real  estate,  81. 
*■■        Temperance,  legislation  concerning,  in  1838,  55, 
Tennessee,  admission  of,  Vol.  II.  41. 
Tenney,  Sanborn,  260. 
Texas,  annexation  of,  90. 
Thayer   of   Pennsylvania.   Vol.    II.    10. 
Thomas,   Benj.   F.,  79,   Vol.  II.   I. 
Thomas,  Francis,  Vol.  II.  2>3- 

Thomas,  General  George  H.,  opinion  of.  Vol.  II.  85. 
Times,  The  New  York,  attempt  to  use  it  in  the  events  of  "  Black  Friday," 

Vol.  II.   172. 
Trade  Dollar,  history  of.  Vol.  II.  154. 
Train,  Charles  R.,  Vol.  II.  i. 

Treasurer  of  United  States,  letter  from,  Vol.  II.  185. 
Treasury,  accounts  in  the,  Vol.  II.  144. 

accounts  in  the,  discrepancies  in,  Vol.  II.  145. 

Department,  bookkeeping  in  Customs  Service,  Vol.  II.  130. 

Department,  management  of,  Vol.   II.   166. 


36o  INDEX 

Treasury,  in  1869,  Vol.  II.  125. 

resignation  from,  Vol.  II.  223. 
Treaty,  Hawaiian,  Vol.  II.  277. 
Treaty  of  Washington,  Vol.  II.  235. 
Trowbridge,  Dr.,  i. 
Tyler,  John,  61,  269. 

administration  of,  68. 

course  of,  in  Peace  Convention,  274. 

u 

TJnITED  states,  credit  of.  method  of  establishing,  Vol.  II.  40. 
in  December  1S71,  Vol.  II.  143. 

V 

VALUE,  standard  of.  Vol.  II.  160. 
Vanderbilt,  William  K.,  Vol.  II.  265. 
Vicksburg,  movement  of  army  upon.  Vol.  II.  307. 

capture  of,  311. 
Virginia,  Mr.  Lincoln's  proposals  to.  Vol.  II.  dZ- 

call  for  Peace  Convention  by,  268. 
Voorhees,  D.  W.,  Vol.  II.  2. 
Votes,  counting  the  electoral.  Vol.  II.  33. 

IV 

WADSWORTH,  CAPT.,  160. 
Wadsworth,  Benj.,  160. 
Wall  Street,  condition  of,  in  Sept.  1869,  Vol.  II.  168. 

during  the  panic  of  "  Black  Friday,"  Vol.  II.  176. 
War,  Civil,  border  states,  in  the.  Vol.  II.  309- 

King  Phillip's,  164. 

opening  of  the  Civil,  284. 

rules  of,  Vol.  II.  234. 
Ward,  General,  34. 
Ward,  Nahum,  34. 
Wars,  when   justifiable,   134. 
Washington,  appointed  agent  to  visit,  April  1861,  284. 

condition  of,  April  1861,  286. 

condition  of  city  upon  Pope's  Defeat,  310. 

in  1865,  Vol.  II.  103. 

Treaty  of.  Vol.  II.  235. 

visit  to,  in  1839,  51. 
Washington,  General,  strength  in  the  country.  Vol.  II.  301. 


INDEX  361 

Webster,  Daniel,  60. 

Address  at  Bunker  Hill,  June  1843,  89. 

in  1851,  125. 

Reply  of  to  Hayne,   Vol.   II.   246. 

Speech  of,  in  Sept.  185 1,  127. 
Webster,  Fletcher,  94. 

death  of,  309. 
Webster,  county  of,  project  for,  236. 
Weed,  Thurlow,  307,  Vol.  II.  207. 
Wentworth,  John,  103. 
Whig  Party,  end  of,  233. 
Whigs,  tactics  of,  in  1840,  62. 
Wilkes,  John,  opinion  of  English  policy,  138. 
William,  bark,  a  slave  trader.  Vol.  II.  289. 
Wilson,  Henry,  78. 

character  of,  228. 
Wilson,  James  F.,  Vol.  II.  i. 
Windom,  Secretary,  Vol.  II.  244. 
Winthrop,  Robert  C,  116-7,  247. 

Wolseley,  General,  as  critic  of  General  Grant,  Vol.  XL  256. 
Wood,  Nathaniel,  peculiarities  of,  84. 
Woodbury,  James  T.,  128. 
Wool,  General,  i. 
Wythe,  Nathaniel  J.,  100. 


"VTANCEY,  speech  by,  252. 
speech  in  reply  to,  252. 
Young,  John  Russell,  on  Chicago  Convention  of  1880,  Vol.  11.  269. 


DUE  DATE 


i^^^Cns 

1993 

UU.V  VI  u 

JAN  0  3 ' 

994 

t*Ji         ,     ,      . 

■J  J^L 

SEP 

307004 

It  II      7 

A  nncif 

1 

JUL  3 

8  dm 

— 1 

kA  A  n  ~i 

A  9QQ7 

nW<J 

,  I  fcWI 

1 

1 

201-6503 

Printed 
In  USA 

1 

^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


92B6695 


B 
Z 


o 
o 


o 


(NJ 

> 

CO 


